FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

FLOT.L (iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLOT.L is a Ultrashort Bond fund tracking the iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist), while EIMI.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLOT.L returned 4.33%/yr vs 7.21%/yr for EIMI.L. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLOT.L charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EIMI.L.

Performance

FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (FLOT.L) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLOT.L achieves a 2.38% return, which is significantly lower than EIMI.L's 18.64% return.

FLOT.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.40%
• 6M: 2.18%
• YTD: 2.38%
• 1Y: 4.77%
• 3Y*: 5.63%
• 5Y*: 4.33%
• 10Y*: —

EIMI.L

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: -6.07%
• 6M: 13.34%
• YTD: 18.64%
• 1Y: 34.63%
• 3Y*: 19.30%
• 5Y*: 7.21%
• 10Y*: 9.25%

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

FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLOT.L iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	2.38%	5.19%	6.39%	6.04%	1.87%	0.60%	0.60%	4.19%	1.39%	0.87%
EIMI.L iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF	18.64%	32.16%	7.36%	11.03%	-19.67%	-0.65%	18.80%	16.37%	-14.18%	16.75%

Correlation

The correlation between FLOT.L and EIMI.L is -0.02, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2017	0.12

The correlation between FLOT.L and EIMI.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.02 (1 year) to 0.12 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLOT.L

FLOT.L Risk / Return Rank: 95
FLOT.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
FLOT.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
FLOT.L Omega Ratio Rank: 96
FLOT.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
FLOT.L Martin Ratio Rank: 98

EIMI.L

EIMI.L Risk / Return Rank: 62
EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
EIMI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
EIMI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 62
EIMI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
EIMI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (FLOT.L) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.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.

	FLOT.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.45	1.61	+0.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.89	2.20	+1.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.64	1.30	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	23.83	2.72	+21.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	44.39	8.68	+35.72

FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLOT.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is higher than the EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLOT.L and EIMI.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.

Drawdowns

FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLOT.L drawdown since its inception was -14.03%, smaller than the maximum EIMI.L drawdown of -38.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLOT.L and EIMI.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLOT.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.03%	-38.73%	+24.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.20%	-12.66%	+12.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.53%	-17.44%	+14.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-2.53%	-33.69%	+31.16%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-38.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-7.71%	+7.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.22%	-13.92%	+13.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.11%	3.98%	-3.87%

Volatility

FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (FLOT.L) is 0.64%, while iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) has a volatility of 8.59%. This indicates that FLOT.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EIMI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLOT.L	EIMI.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.64%	8.59%	-7.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.46%	19.48%	-18.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.94%	21.43%	-19.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.90%	18.83%	-15.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.92%	19.22%	-15.30%

FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLOT.L has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than EIMI.L's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FLOT.L vs. EIMI.L - Dividend Comparison

FLOT.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.68%, while EIMI.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EIMI.L iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLOT.L iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	4.68%	5.02%	6.05%	5.50%	1.45%	0.60%	1.59%	2.91%	2.21%	0.46%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLOT.L and EIMI.L in my portfolio?

FLOT.L and EIMI.L have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FLOT.L or EIMI.L?

On fees, FLOT.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLOT.L or EIMI.L?

FLOT.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for EIMI.L.

What is the main difference between FLOT.L and EIMI.L?

FLOT.L is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while EIMI.L is Emerging Markets Equities. FLOT.L tracks iShares $ Floating Rate Bond UCITS ETF USD (Dist), while EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for FLOT.L and 0.18% for EIMI.L.