EZA vs. RNEM

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

EZA (iShares MSCI South Africa ETF) and RNEM (First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - EZA tracks the MSCI South Africa Index while RNEM tracks the Nasdaq Riskalyze Emerging Markets Equity Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EZA returned 10.53%/yr vs 5.15%/yr for RNEM. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EZA charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNEM.

Performance

EZA vs. RNEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) and First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EZA achieves a -6.51% return, which is significantly lower than RNEM's 1.18% return.

EZA

• 1D: -1.26%
• 1M: -7.50%
• 6M: -12.78%
• YTD: -6.51%
• 1Y: 26.97%
• 3Y*: 20.26%
• 5Y*: 10.53%
• 10Y*: 6.23%

RNEM

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: -0.16%
• 6M: -0.69%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 1Y: 3.25%
• 3Y*: 5.95%
• 5Y*: 5.15%
• 10Y*: —

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

EZA vs. RNEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EZA iShares MSCI South Africa ETF	-6.51%	75.20%	7.16%	1.51%	-5.18%	7.91%	-5.19%	9.83%	-25.24%	24.04%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	1.18%	15.58%	-1.47%	23.43%	-8.75%	6.16%	-8.16%	12.76%	-9.34%	11.97%

Correlation

The correlation between EZA and RNEM is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.68
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2017	0.62

The correlation between EZA and RNEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

EZA vs. RNEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EZA	RNEM
Basic Materials	39.0%	14.2%
Financial Services	33.5%	35.0%
Consumer Cyclical	14.3%	9.9%
Communication Services	6.5%	8.7%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	6.0%
Real Estate	1.6%	0.8%
Industrials	1.5%	3.9%
Healthcare	1.1%	4.5%
Energy	-	7.0%
Technology	-	6.4%
Utilities	-	3.5%

Return for Risk

EZA vs. RNEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EZA

EZA Risk / Return Rank: 28
EZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
EZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
EZA Omega Ratio Rank: 28
EZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
EZA Martin Ratio Rank: 25

RNEM

RNEM Risk / Return Rank: 13
RNEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
RNEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
RNEM Omega Ratio Rank: 12
RNEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
RNEM Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. RNEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) and First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM). 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	RNEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.84	0.26	+0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.28	0.46	+0.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.05	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.16	0.30	+0.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.54	0.81	+1.73

EZA vs. RNEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EZA Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is higher than the RNEM Sharpe Ratio of 0.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EZA and RNEM, 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. RNEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EZA drawdown since its inception was -64.64%, which is greater than RNEM's maximum drawdown of -38.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EZA and RNEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EZA	RNEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.64%	-38.38%	-26.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.31%	-10.71%	-12.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.31%	-13.09%	-10.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.94%	-21.41%	-13.53%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-62.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-21.18%	-4.94%	-16.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.93%	-9.25%	-7.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.65%	4.02%	+6.63%

Volatility

EZA vs. RNEM - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) has a higher volatility of 6.54% compared to First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) at 3.16%. This indicates that EZA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EZA	RNEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.54%	3.16%	+3.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.03%	10.90%	+16.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.21%	12.50%	+19.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.83%	14.48%	+14.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.13%	17.17%	+13.96%

EZA vs. RNEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EZA has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than RNEM's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

EZA vs. RNEM - Dividend Comparison

EZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.02%, more than RNEM's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EZA iShares MSCI South Africa ETF	8.02%	6.16%	7.26%	2.84%	3.90%	2.05%	5.51%	12.27%	3.81%	1.55%	4.10%	3.03%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	2.35%	2.75%	3.45%	1.63%	2.99%	3.20%	3.01%	2.85%	2.85%	2.28%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EZA and RNEM in my portfolio?

EZA and RNEM have a correlation of 0.70, 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 RNEM?

EZA has higher volatility (6.54%) compared to RNEM (3.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EZA dropped -64.64% vs RNEM's -38.38%.

Which ETF is better, EZA or RNEM?

On 5-year performance, EZA leads with 10.53% vs 5.15% for RNEM. On fees, EZA is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, RNEM has been the lower-risk option at 3.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EZA or RNEM?

Over the 5-year period, EZA has performed better with a 10.53% return vs 5.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EZA or RNEM?

EZA is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNEM.

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

EZA has the higher dividend yield at 8.02%, compared with 2.35% for RNEM.

What is the main difference between EZA and RNEM?

EZA tracks MSCI South Africa Index, while RNEM tracks Nasdaq Riskalyze Emerging Markets Equity Select Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for EZA and 0.75% for RNEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EZA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.84 vs 0.26), 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.