PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EZA vs. AMEL.DE
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EZA vs. AMEL.DE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) and Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Latin America UCITS ETF EUR (AMEL.DE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EZA is traded in USD, while AMEL.DE is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the AMEL.DE values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EZA achieves a -2.81% return, which is significantly lower than AMEL.DE's 12.08% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with EZA having a 8.12% annualized return and AMEL.DE not far ahead at 8.40%.


EZA

1D
0.89%
1M
-5.51%
YTD
-2.81%
6M
2.77%
1Y
30.30%
3Y*
23.45%
5Y*
9.50%
10Y*
8.12%

AMEL.DE

1D
3.19%
1M
-4.27%
YTD
12.08%
6M
13.03%
1Y
37.41%
3Y*
12.87%
5Y*
9.14%
10Y*
8.40%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EZA vs. AMEL.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
AMEL.DE
Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Latin America UCITS ETF EUR
12.08%55.85%-26.65%32.20%9.92%-10.88%-13.56%18.15%-7.84%23.44%

Correlation

The correlation between EZA and AMEL.DE is 0.59, 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

0.59

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

0.51

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

0.49

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

0.51

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 30, 2011

0.52

The correlation between EZA and AMEL.DE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.59 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

EZA vs. AMEL.DE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

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

AMEL.DE
AMEL.DE Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
AMEL.DE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AMEL.DE Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
AMEL.DE Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
AMEL.DE Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
AMEL.DE Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
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.

EZA vs. AMEL.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) and Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Latin America UCITS ETF EUR (AMEL.DE). 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.


EZAAMEL.DEDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.86

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.09

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.30

-0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.31

2.46

-1.16

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.41

7.76

-4.36

EZA vs. AMEL.DE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EZA Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is lower than the AMEL.DE Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EZA and AMEL.DE, 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

EZA vs. AMEL.DE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EZA drawdown since its inception was -64.64%, roughly equal to the maximum AMEL.DE drawdown of -61.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EZA and AMEL.DE.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EZAAMEL.DEDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.64%

-61.57%

-3.07%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.31%

-15.11%

-8.20%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.31%

-27.01%

+3.70%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.94%

-28.52%

-6.42%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.25%

-54.94%

-7.31%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-18.05%

-10.20%

-7.85%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.92%

-26.35%

+9.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.93%

4.81%

+4.12%

Volatility

EZA vs. AMEL.DE - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) has a higher volatility of 11.34% compared to Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Latin America UCITS ETF EUR (AMEL.DE) at 7.31%. This indicates that EZA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AMEL.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EZAAMEL.DEDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.34%

7.31%

+4.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

27.03%

17.46%

+9.57%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

31.92%

20.54%

+11.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.86%

22.51%

+6.35%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

31.43%

26.29%

+5.14%

EZA vs. AMEL.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison

EZA has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than AMEL.DE's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

EZA vs. AMEL.DE - Dividend Comparison

EZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.34%, while AMEL.DE has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AMEL.DE
Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets Latin America UCITS ETF EUR
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
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


EZA and AMEL.DE have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, AMEL.DE is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

AMEL.DE is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for EZA.

EZA is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while AMEL.DE is Latin America Equities. EZA tracks MSCI South Africa Index, while AMEL.DE tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Latin America. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for EZA and 0.20% for AMEL.DE.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EZA and AMEL.DE

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