PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EWM vs. EZA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EWM vs. EZA

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EWM (iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF) and EZA (iShares MSCI South Africa ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EWM is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Malaysia Index, while EZA is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI South Africa Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EWM returned 2.79%/yr vs 8.12%/yr for EZA. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EWM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for EZA.

Performance

EWM vs. EZA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) and iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EWM achieves a 2.89% return, which is significantly higher than EZA's -2.81% return. Over the past 10 years, EWM has underperformed EZA with an annualized return of 2.79%, while EZA has yielded a comparatively higher 8.12% annualized return.

EWM

1D
0.25%
1M
-6.82%
YTD
2.89%
6M
6.00%
1Y
20.41%
3Y*
14.97%
5Y*
4.69%
10Y*
2.79%

EZA

1D
0.89%
1M
-5.12%
YTD
-2.81%
6M
2.77%
1Y
33.90%
3Y*
23.45%
5Y*
9.50%
10Y*
8.12%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EWM vs. EZA - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EWM
iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF		2.89%15.74%19.46%-3.61%-6.00%-7.40%3.12%-1.41%-6.28%24.25%
EZA
iShares MSCI South Africa ETF		-2.81%75.20%7.16%1.51%-5.18%7.91%-5.19%9.83%-25.24%36.03%

Correlation

The correlation between EWM and EZA is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.53

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.47

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.48

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.55

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 7, 2003

0.58

The correlation between EWM and EZA shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (3 years) to 0.58 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EWM vs. EZA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EWM
EZA

Financial Services

46.6%
32.1%

Industrials

11.1%
1.5%

Utilities

10.8%

-

Basic Materials

8.9%
39.7%

Consumer Defensive

7.3%
2.4%

Communication Services

6.6%
6.7%

Energy

3.9%

-

Healthcare

3.8%
1.2%

Consumer Cyclical

1.1%
14.7%

Real Estate

-

1.6%

Technology

-

-

Financial Services

EWM
46.6%
EZA
32.1%

Industrials

EWM
11.1%
EZA
1.5%

Utilities

EWM
10.8%
EZA

-

Basic Materials

EWM
8.9%
EZA
39.7%

Consumer Defensive

EWM
7.3%
EZA
2.4%

Communication Services

EWM
6.6%
EZA
6.7%

Energy

EWM
3.9%
EZA

-

Healthcare

EWM
3.8%
EZA
1.2%

Consumer Cyclical

EWM
1.1%
EZA
14.7%

Real Estate

EWM

-

EZA
1.6%

Technology

EWM

-

EZA

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF

iShares MSCI South Africa ETF

Often compared with EWM:
EWM vs. EIDOEWM vs. EWYEWM vs. EWTEWM vs. EPIEWM vs. AAXJEWM vs. VOOEWM vs. SCHD
Often compared with EZA:
EZA vs. AFKEZA vs. KSAEZA vs. SPYEZA vs. PAF.LEZA vs. VTIEZA vs. SCHDEZA vs. INDA

Return for Risk

EWM vs. EZA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EWM
EWM Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
EWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
EWM Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
EWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
EWM Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
Martin Ratio Rank
EZA
EZA Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
EZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
EZA Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
EZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
EZA Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

EWM vs. EZA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) and iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

EWMEZADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.36
0.95

+0.40

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.92
1.41

+0.52

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.18

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.09

1.31

+0.79

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.65

3.41

+3.24

EWM vs. EZA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWM Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is higher than the EZA Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWM and EZA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

EWM vs. EZA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWM drawdown since its inception was -89.19%, which is greater than EZA's maximum drawdown of -64.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWM and EZA.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EWMEZADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-89.19%

-64.64%

-24.55%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.14%

-23.31%

+14.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.31%

-23.31%

+2.00%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.76%

-34.94%

+12.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.81%

-62.25%

+18.44%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.08%

-18.05%

+8.97%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.80%

-16.92%

-14.88%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.87%

8.93%

-6.06%

Volatility

EWM vs. EZA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) is 3.97%, while iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) has a volatility of 11.34%. This indicates that EWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EZA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EWMEZADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.97%

11.34%

-7.37%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.95%

27.03%

-16.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.10%

31.92%

-17.82%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.72%

28.86%

-15.14%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.27%

31.43%

-15.16%

EWM vs. EZA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than EZA's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

EWM vs. EZA - Dividend Comparison

EWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, less than EZA's 6.34% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EWM
iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF		3.32%3.41%3.32%3.47%3.00%6.48%1.89%2.91%3.84%5.58%5.97%37.54%
EZA
iShares MSCI South Africa ETF		6.34%6.16%7.26%2.84%3.90%2.05%5.51%12.27%3.81%1.55%4.10%3.03%

Frequently Asked Questions

EWM and EZA have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EZA has higher volatility (11.34%) compared to EWM (3.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWM dropped -89.19% vs EZA's -64.64%.

On 10-year performance, EZA leads with 8.12% vs 2.79% for EWM. On fees, EWM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EWM has been the lower-risk option at 3.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EZA has performed better with a 8.12% return vs 2.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EWM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for EZA.

EZA has the higher dividend yield at 6.34%, compared with 3.32% for EWM.

EWM is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while EZA is Emerging Markets Equities. EWM tracks MSCI Malaysia Index, while EZA tracks MSCI South Africa Index. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for EWM and 0.59% for EZA.

EWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 0.95), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EWM and EZA

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer