EZA vs. QAT

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

EZA (iShares MSCI South Africa ETF) and QAT (iShares MSCI Qatar ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds from iShares - EZA tracks the MSCI South Africa Index while QAT tracks the MSCI All Qatar Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EZA returned 8.07%/yr vs 4.00%/yr for QAT. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.59% expense ratio.

Performance

EZA vs. QAT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EZA achieves a -6.17% return, which is significantly lower than QAT's -0.75% return. Over the past 10 years, EZA has outperformed QAT with an annualized return of 8.07%, while QAT has yielded a comparatively lower 4.00% annualized return.

EZA

• 1D: 1.59%
• 1M: -7.53%
• YTD: -6.17%
• 6M: -7.67%
• 1Y: 28.73%
• 3Y*: 24.11%
• 5Y*: 9.89%
• 10Y*: 8.07%

QAT

• 1D: -0.88%
• 1M: -2.22%
• YTD: -0.75%
• 6M: -1.50%
• 1Y: 2.95%
• 3Y*: 5.26%
• 5Y*: 3.29%
• 10Y*: 4.00%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EZA vs. QAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EZA iShares MSCI South Africa ETF	-6.17%	75.20%	7.16%	1.51%	-5.18%	7.91%	-5.19%	9.83%	-25.24%	36.03%
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	-0.75%	8.81%	5.20%	2.72%	-7.23%	14.42%	6.94%	-0.44%	20.03%	-11.66%

Correlation

The correlation between EZA and QAT is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.34
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 2014	0.31

The correlation between EZA and QAT shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (10 years) to 0.43 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EZA vs. QAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EZA	QAT
Basic Materials	39.0%	12.6%
Financial Services	33.5%	55.5%
Consumer Cyclical	14.3%	0.7%
Communication Services	6.5%	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	0.6%
Real Estate	1.6%	4.0%
Industrials	1.5%	8.4%
Healthcare	1.1%	0.8%
Energy	-	7.6%
Technology	-	1.0%
Utilities	-	2.5%

Return for Risk

EZA vs. QAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

EZA

EZA Risk / Return Rank: 27
EZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
EZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
EZA Omega Ratio Rank: 27
EZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
EZA Martin Ratio Rank: 25

QAT

QAT Risk / Return Rank: 11
QAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
QAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
QAT Omega Ratio Rank: 11
QAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
QAT Martin Ratio Rank: 11

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. QAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) and iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT). 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.

	EZA	QAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.90	0.23	+0.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.35	0.42	+0.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.05	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.24	0.28	+0.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.04	0.51	+2.53

EZA vs. QAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EZA Sharpe Ratio is 0.90, which is higher than the QAT Sharpe Ratio of 0.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EZA and QAT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EZA vs. QAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EZA drawdown since its inception was -64.64%, which is greater than QAT's maximum drawdown of -45.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EZA and QAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	EZA	QAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.64%	-45.21%	-19.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.31%	-10.60%	-12.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.31%	-17.41%	-5.90%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.94%	-33.17%	-1.77%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-62.25%	-34.04%	-28.21%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.89%	-13.09%	-7.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.92%	-19.14%	+2.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.48%	5.79%	+3.69%

Volatility

EZA vs. QAT - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) has a higher volatility of 10.79% compared to iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) at 5.24%. This indicates that EZA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EZA	QAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.79%	5.24%	+5.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.45%	11.12%	+16.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.15%	13.15%	+19.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.93%	15.07%	+13.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.28%	17.54%	+13.74%

EZA vs. QAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EZA and QAT have an expense ratio of 0.59%.

Dividends

EZA vs. QAT - Dividend Comparison

EZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.99%, more than QAT's 4.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EZA iShares MSCI South Africa ETF	7.99%	6.16%	7.26%	2.84%	3.90%	2.05%	5.51%	12.27%	3.81%	1.55%	4.10%	3.03%
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	4.71%	3.51%	5.90%	3.92%	4.78%	2.33%	2.63%	3.57%	4.63%	4.10%	3.51%	4.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EZA and QAT in my portfolio?

EZA and QAT have a correlation of 0.43, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EZA or QAT?

EZA has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to QAT (5.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EZA dropped -64.64% vs QAT's -45.21%.

Which ETF is better, EZA or QAT?

On 10-year performance, EZA leads with 8.07% vs 4.00% for QAT. Both ETFs have the same 0.59% expense ratio. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 5.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EZA or QAT?

Over the 10-year period, EZA has performed better with a 8.07% return vs 4.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EZA or QAT?

EZA and QAT have the same expense ratio: 0.59% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EZA or QAT?

EZA has the higher dividend yield at 7.99%, compared with 4.71% for QAT.

What is the main difference between EZA and QAT?

EZA tracks MSCI South Africa Index, while QAT tracks MSCI All Qatar Capped Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EZA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.90 vs 0.23), 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.