PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

EZA vs. HIDR.L

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EZA (iShares MSCI South Africa ETF) and HIDR.L (HSBC MSCI Indonesia UCITS ETF USD) are both exchange-traded funds - EZA is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI South Africa Index, while HIDR.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Indonesia NR IDR. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EZA returned 8.12%/yr vs -3.29%/yr for HIDR.L. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EZA charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for HIDR.L.

Performance

EZA vs. HIDR.L - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EZA is traded in USD, while HIDR.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the HIDR.L 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 higher than HIDR.L's -36.24% return. Over the past 10 years, EZA has outperformed HIDR.L with an annualized return of 8.12%, while HIDR.L has yielded a comparatively lower -3.29% annualized return.

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%

HIDR.L

1D
2.18%
1M
-10.86%
YTD
-36.24%
6M
-36.19%
1Y
-37.53%
3Y*
-19.81%
5Y*
-8.95%
10Y*
-3.29%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EZA vs. HIDR.L - 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%
HIDR.L
HSBC MSCI Indonesia UCITS ETF USD		-36.24%-1.20%-14.61%4.43%3.09%1.47%-8.00%8.24%-9.58%23.37%

Correlation

The correlation between EZA and HIDR.L is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.31

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

0.33

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

0.36

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

0.42

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

0.44

The correlation between EZA and HIDR.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (1 year) to 0.44 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EZA vs. HIDR.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EZA
HIDR.L

Basic Materials

39.7%
12.8%

Financial Services

32.1%
56.9%

Consumer Cyclical

14.7%

-

Communication Services

6.7%
11.6%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
4.2%

Real Estate

1.6%

-

Industrials

1.5%
7.9%

Healthcare

1.2%

-

Energy

-

1.7%

Technology

-

3.4%

Utilities

-

1.6%

Basic Materials

EZA
39.7%
HIDR.L
12.8%

Financial Services

EZA
32.1%
HIDR.L
56.9%

Consumer Cyclical

EZA
14.7%
HIDR.L

-

Communication Services

EZA
6.7%
HIDR.L
11.6%

Consumer Defensive

EZA
2.4%
HIDR.L
4.2%

Real Estate

EZA
1.6%
HIDR.L

-

Industrials

EZA
1.5%
HIDR.L
7.9%

Healthcare

EZA
1.2%
HIDR.L

-

Energy

EZA

-

HIDR.L
1.7%

Technology

EZA

-

HIDR.L
3.4%

Utilities

EZA

-

HIDR.L
1.6%

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 South Africa ETF

HSBC MSCI Indonesia UCITS ETF USD

Often compared with EZA:
EZA vs. AFKEZA vs. KSAEZA vs. SPYEZA vs. PAF.LEZA vs. VTIEZA vs. SCHDEZA vs. INDA
Often compared with HIDR.L:
HIDR.L vs. XDUS.LHIDR.L vs. IAUHIDR.L vs. SPYHIDR.L vs. CP9U.LHIDR.L vs. HKOR.LHIDR.L vs. CP9G.LHIDR.L vs. HMUD.L

Return for Risk

EZA vs. HIDR.L — 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
HIDR.L
HIDR.L Risk / Return Rank: 11
Overall Rank
HIDR.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 00
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HIDR.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
Sortino Ratio Rank
HIDR.L Omega Ratio Rank: 00
Omega Ratio Rank
HIDR.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
Calmar Ratio Rank
HIDR.L Martin Ratio Rank: 00
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. HIDR.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) and HSBC MSCI Indonesia UCITS ETF USD (HIDR.L). 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.

EZAHIDR.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.95
-1.37

+2.33

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.41
-2.04

+3.45

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

0.74

+0.44

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.31

-0.79

+2.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.41

-2.30

+5.71

EZA vs. HIDR.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EZA Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is higher than the HIDR.L Sharpe Ratio of -1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EZA and HIDR.L, 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. HIDR.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EZA drawdown since its inception was -64.64%, which is greater than HIDR.L's maximum drawdown of -58.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EZA and HIDR.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EZAHIDR.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.64%

-58.15%

-6.49%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.31%

-48.66%

+25.35%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.31%

-58.13%

+34.82%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.94%

-58.13%

+23.19%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.25%

-58.13%

-4.12%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-18.05%

-50.90%

+32.85%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.92%

-18.92%

+2.00%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.93%

16.73%

-7.80%

Volatility

EZA vs. HIDR.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) is 11.34%, while HSBC MSCI Indonesia UCITS ETF USD (HIDR.L) has a volatility of 15.37%. This indicates that EZA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HIDR.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EZAHIDR.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.34%

15.37%

-4.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

27.03%

24.62%

+2.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

31.92%

28.01%

+3.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.86%

21.84%

+7.02%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

31.43%

24.76%

+6.67%

EZA vs. HIDR.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EZA has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than HIDR.L's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

EZA vs. HIDR.L - Dividend Comparison

EZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.34%, more than HIDR.L's 5.93% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
HIDR.L
HSBC MSCI Indonesia UCITS ETF USD		5.93%4.87%3.49%3.49%2.04%1.27%1.75%1.62%1.50%1.14%1.12%1.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

EZA and HIDR.L have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, HIDR.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

HIDR.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for EZA.

EZA is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while HIDR.L is Asia Pacific Equities. EZA tracks MSCI South Africa Index, while HIDR.L tracks MSCI Indonesia NR IDR. They also come from different issuers: iShares and HSBC. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for EZA and 0.50% for HIDR.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EZA and HIDR.L

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