EWS vs. GAMR
EWS (iShares MSCI Singapore ETF) and GAMR (Amplify Video Game Leaders ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EWS is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Singapore Index, while GAMR is a Gaming fund tracking the VettaFi Video Game Leaders Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EWS returned 7.88%/yr vs 12.44%/yr for GAMR. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EWS charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for GAMR.
Performance
EWS vs. GAMR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EWS achieves a 5.96% return, which is significantly higher than GAMR's -2.06% return. Over the past 10 years, EWS has underperformed GAMR with an annualized return of 7.88%, while GAMR has yielded a comparatively higher 12.44% annualized return.
EWS
- 1D
- 0.07%
- 1M
- 0.24%
- YTD
- 5.96%
- 6M
- 7.68%
- 1Y
- 18.15%
- 3Y*
- 20.28%
- 5Y*
- 8.93%
- 10Y*
- 7.88%
GAMR
- 1D
- 0.84%
- 1M
- -0.51%
- YTD
- -2.06%
- 6M
- -1.64%
- 1Y
- 12.75%
- 3Y*
- 12.99%
- 5Y*
- -1.76%
- 10Y*
- 12.44%
EWS vs. GAMR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EWS iShares MSCI Singapore ETF | 5.96% | 31.35% | 22.10% | 6.15% | -9.80% | 5.47% | -8.47% | 14.54% | -11.34% | 34.78% |
GAMR Amplify Video Game Leaders ETF | -2.06% | 39.20% | 11.23% | 6.89% | -36.96% | 11.31% | 76.83% | 14.76% | -18.82% | 59.47% |
Correlation
The correlation between EWS and GAMR is 0.55, 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 | 0.55 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.59 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.58 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 10, 2016 | 0.58 |
The correlation between EWS and GAMR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.
EWS vs. GAMR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
EWS
GAMR
Financial Services
Industrials
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Communication Services
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Basic Materials
-
-
Energy
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Financial Services
EWS
GAMR
Industrials
EWS
GAMR
-
Real Estate
EWS
GAMR
-
Utilities
EWS
GAMR
-
Consumer Defensive
EWS
GAMR
-
Communication Services
EWS
GAMR
Technology
EWS
GAMR
Consumer Cyclical
EWS
GAMR
Basic Materials
EWS
-
GAMR
-
Energy
EWS
-
GAMR
-
Healthcare
EWS
-
GAMR
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
EWS vs. GAMR — Risk / Return Rank
EWS
GAMR
EWS vs. GAMR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Singapore ETF (EWS) and Amplify Video Game Leaders ETF (GAMR). 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.
| EWS | GAMR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.65 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.10 | +0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.24 | 0.39 | +1.85 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.40 | 0.88 | +4.53 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EWS vs. GAMR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EWS drawdown since its inception was -75.13%, which is greater than GAMR's maximum drawdown of -55.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWS and GAMR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EWS | GAMR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -75.13% | -55.37% | -19.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.82% | -29.36% | +21.54% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.34% | -29.36% | +13.02% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.06% | -50.57% | +21.51% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.84% | -55.37% | +14.53% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.77% | -18.39% | +15.62% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -21.98% | -22.11% | +0.13% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.23% | 12.99% | -9.76% |
Volatility
EWS vs. GAMR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI Singapore ETF (EWS) is 5.05%, while Amplify Video Game Leaders ETF (GAMR) has a volatility of 7.57%. This indicates that EWS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GAMR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EWS | GAMR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.05% | 7.57% | -2.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.11% | 18.38% | -6.27% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.24% | 23.04% | -7.80% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.34% | 24.48% | -7.14% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.04% | 24.32% | -6.28% |
EWS vs. GAMR - Expense Ratio Comparison
EWS has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than GAMR's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
EWS vs. GAMR - Dividend Comparison
EWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.87%, more than GAMR's 0.53% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EWS iShares MSCI Singapore ETF | 3.87% | 4.10% | 4.28% | 6.50% | 2.56% | 6.00% | 2.68% | 4.70% | 4.21% | 3.46% | 3.96% | 4.20% |
GAMR Amplify Video Game Leaders ETF | 0.53% | 0.52% | 0.63% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EWS and GAMR have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GAMR has higher volatility (7.57%) compared to EWS (5.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWS dropped -75.13% vs GAMR's -55.37%.
On 10-year performance, GAMR leads with 12.44% vs 7.88% for EWS. On fees, EWS is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EWS has been the lower-risk option at 5.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, GAMR has performed better with a 12.44% return vs 7.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EWS is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for GAMR.
EWS has the higher dividend yield at 3.87%, compared with 0.53% for GAMR.
EWS is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while GAMR is Gaming. EWS tracks MSCI Singapore Index, while GAMR tracks VettaFi Video Game Leaders Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amplify. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EWS and 0.59% for GAMR.
EWS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.15 vs 0.50), 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.
Find the right allocation for EWS and GAMR
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