PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

EZA vs. TDGB.L

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EZA (iShares MSCI South Africa ETF) and TDGB.L (VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EZA is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI South Africa Index, while TDGB.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Developed Markets Large Cap Dividend Leaders Screened Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EZA returned 8.12%/yr vs 10.04%/yr for TDGB.L. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EZA charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for TDGB.L.

Performance

EZA vs. TDGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) and VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EZA is traded in USD, while TDGB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the TDGB.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 lower than TDGB.L's 9.84% return. Over the past 10 years, EZA has underperformed TDGB.L with an annualized return of 8.12%, while TDGB.L has yielded a comparatively higher 10.04% annualized return.

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%

TDGB.L

1D
0.13%
1M
1.04%
YTD
9.84%
6M
11.95%
1Y
27.32%
3Y*
22.83%
5Y*
16.75%
10Y*
10.04%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EZA vs. TDGB.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%
TDGB.L
VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF		9.84%40.77%8.81%14.79%9.40%18.51%-2.72%8.05%-13.18%12.67%

Correlation

The correlation between EZA and TDGB.L is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.49

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

0.52

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

0.53

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

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2016

0.48

The correlation between EZA and TDGB.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

EZA vs. TDGB.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EZA
TDGB.L

Basic Materials

39.7%
1.2%

Financial Services

32.1%
31.7%

Consumer Cyclical

14.7%
3.8%

Communication Services

6.7%
8.7%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
10.1%

Real Estate

1.6%
0.0%

Industrials

1.5%
3.9%

Healthcare

1.2%
14.4%

Energy

-

19.7%

Technology

-

0.3%

Utilities

-

6.2%

Basic Materials

EZA
39.7%
TDGB.L
1.2%

Financial Services

EZA
32.1%
TDGB.L
31.7%

Consumer Cyclical

EZA
14.7%
TDGB.L
3.8%

Communication Services

EZA
6.7%
TDGB.L
8.7%

Consumer Defensive

EZA
2.4%
TDGB.L
10.1%

Real Estate

EZA
1.6%
TDGB.L
0.0%

Industrials

EZA
1.5%
TDGB.L
3.9%

Healthcare

EZA
1.2%
TDGB.L
14.4%

Energy

EZA

-

TDGB.L
19.7%

Technology

EZA

-

TDGB.L
0.3%

Utilities

EZA

-

TDGB.L
6.2%

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

VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF

Often compared with EZA:
EZA vs. AFKEZA vs. KSAEZA vs. SPYEZA vs. PAF.LEZA vs. VTIEZA vs. SCHDEZA vs. INDA
Often compared with TDGB.L:
TDGB.L vs. VHYL.ASTDGB.L vs. SCHDTDGB.L vs. SPYDTDGB.L vs. LDEG.LTDGB.L vs. VHYD.LTDGB.L vs. JEGP.LTDGB.L vs. CSKR.L

Return for Risk

EZA vs. TDGB.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
TDGB.L
TDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9393
Omega Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9494
Calmar Ratio Rank
TDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
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. TDGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) and VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.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.

EZATDGB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.95
2.45

-1.50

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.41
3.33

-1.92

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.44

-0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.31

5.37

-4.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.41

15.18

-11.77

EZA vs. TDGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EZA Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is lower than the TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EZA and TDGB.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. TDGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EZA drawdown since its inception was -64.64%, which is greater than TDGB.L's maximum drawdown of -45.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EZA and TDGB.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EZATDGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.64%

-45.20%

-19.44%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.31%

-5.06%

-18.25%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.31%

-13.68%

-9.63%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.94%

-18.93%

-16.01%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.25%

-45.20%

-17.05%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-18.05%

-0.80%

-17.25%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.92%

-8.17%

-8.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.93%

1.80%

+7.13%

Volatility

EZA vs. TDGB.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) has a higher volatility of 11.34% compared to VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L) at 2.32%. This indicates that EZA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TDGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EZATDGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.34%

2.32%

+9.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

27.03%

8.18%

+18.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

31.92%

11.11%

+20.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.86%

14.23%

+14.63%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

31.43%

16.74%

+14.69%

EZA vs. TDGB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EZA has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than TDGB.L's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

EZA vs. TDGB.L - Dividend Comparison

EZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.34%, more than TDGB.L's 3.16% 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%
TDGB.L
VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF		3.16%3.50%4.26%4.93%4.40%4.06%4.16%4.52%4.38%3.48%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

EZA and TDGB.L have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, TDGB.L is cheaper at 0.38% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

TDGB.L is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for EZA.

EZA is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while TDGB.L is Global Equities. EZA tracks MSCI South Africa Index, while TDGB.L tracks Morningstar Developed Markets Large Cap Dividend Leaders Screened Select Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for EZA and 0.38% for TDGB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EZA and TDGB.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