PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FXC.L vs. EIMI.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FXC.L vs. EIMI.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FXC.L (iShares China Large Cap UCITS) and EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FXC.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China NR USD, while EIMI.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FXC.L returned 4.68%/yr vs 11.45%/yr for EIMI.L. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FXC.L charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EIMI.L.

Performance

FXC.L vs. EIMI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.L) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

FXC.L is traded in GBp, while EIMI.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the EIMI.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FXC.L achieves a -6.72% return, which is significantly lower than EIMI.L's 26.35% return. Over the past 10 years, FXC.L has underperformed EIMI.L with an annualized return of 4.68%, while EIMI.L has yielded a comparatively higher 11.45% annualized return.

FXC.L

1D
-2.40%
1M
-1.78%
YTD
-6.72%
6M
-8.20%
1Y
3.46%
3Y*
9.76%
5Y*
-1.37%
10Y*
4.68%

EIMI.L

1D
-1.09%
1M
8.94%
YTD
26.35%
6M
28.41%
1Y
54.25%
3Y*
20.69%
5Y*
9.05%
10Y*
11.45%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FXC.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		-6.72%20.50%33.78%-17.86%-10.68%-18.89%7.61%10.16%-6.21%24.12%
EIMI.L
iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF		26.35%22.75%9.23%5.48%-10.12%0.29%15.31%11.94%-9.08%25.11%

Correlation

The correlation between FXC.L and EIMI.L is 0.60, 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

0.61

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

0.68

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

0.73

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

0.78

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 10, 2014

0.78

The correlation between FXC.L and EIMI.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (1 year) to 0.78 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FXC.L vs. EIMI.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FXC.L
EIMI.L

Financial Services

34.7%
18.4%

Consumer Cyclical

26.6%
9.6%

Communication Services

16.2%
6.4%

Technology

5.4%
35.0%

Energy

5.2%
3.9%

Basic Materials

4.1%
6.9%

Industrials

3.1%
8.9%

Healthcare

2.3%
3.7%

Real Estate

1.1%
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

0.9%
3.3%

Utilities

0.4%
2.2%

Financial Services

FXC.L
34.7%
EIMI.L
18.4%

Consumer Cyclical

FXC.L
26.6%
EIMI.L
9.6%

Communication Services

FXC.L
16.2%
EIMI.L
6.4%

Technology

FXC.L
5.4%
EIMI.L
35.0%

Energy

FXC.L
5.2%
EIMI.L
3.9%

Basic Materials

FXC.L
4.1%
EIMI.L
6.9%

Industrials

FXC.L
3.1%
EIMI.L
8.9%

Healthcare

FXC.L
2.3%
EIMI.L
3.7%

Real Estate

FXC.L
1.1%
EIMI.L
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

FXC.L
0.9%
EIMI.L
3.3%

Utilities

FXC.L
0.4%
EIMI.L
2.2%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares China Large Cap UCITS

iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF

Often compared with FXC.L:
FXC.L vs. KWEB.LFXC.L vs. FRCH.LFXC.L vs. XCX6.LFXC.L vs. ASIL.LFXC.L vs. IWDA.LFXC.L vs. CSPX.LFXC.L vs. IWDA.AS
Often compared with EIMI.L:
EIMI.L vs. VFEA.DEEIMI.L vs. CSPX.LEIMI.L vs. AVEMEIMI.L vs. SWRD.LEIMI.L vs. VWOEIMI.L vs. VFEG.LEIMI.L vs. AEME.L

Return for Risk

FXC.L vs. EIMI.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FXC.L
FXC.L Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
FXC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FXC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
FXC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
FXC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
FXC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1111
Martin Ratio Rank
EIMI.L
EIMI.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.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.

FXC.LEIMI.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.19
3.02

-2.83

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.40
3.88

-3.49

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.56

-0.52

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.22

5.10

-4.88

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.48

17.35

-16.87

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current FXC.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.19, which is lower than the EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FXC.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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

FXC.LEIMI.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.19

3.02

-2.83

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.05

0.55

-0.59

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.19

0.62

-0.43

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

0.48

-0.17

Drawdowns

FXC.L vs. EIMI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FXC.L drawdown since its inception was -60.51%, which is greater than EIMI.L's maximum drawdown of -31.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FXC.L and EIMI.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FXC.LEIMI.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-60.51%

-31.70%

-28.81%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.54%

-10.58%

-4.96%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.53%

-15.79%

-11.74%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-46.74%

-22.27%

-24.47%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-53.90%

-26.10%

-27.80%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-21.71%

-1.09%

-20.62%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-18.76%

-8.72%

-10.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.20%

3.12%

+4.08%

Volatility

FXC.L vs. EIMI.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares China Large Cap UCITS (FXC.L) is 6.71%, while iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) has a volatility of 7.60%. This indicates that FXC.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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FXC.LEIMI.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.71%

7.60%

-0.89%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.57%

15.51%

-2.94%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.97%

17.87%

+0.10%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.14%

16.60%

+11.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.95%

18.39%

+6.56%

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

FXC.L has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than EIMI.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

FXC.L vs. EIMI.L - Dividend Comparison

FXC.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.58%, while EIMI.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%0.00%0.00%
FXC.L
iShares China Large Cap UCITS		2.58%2.37%2.99%3.10%2.85%2.51%3.26%3.22%3.89%3.18%3.04%4.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

FXC.L and EIMI.L have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EIMI.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EIMI.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for FXC.L.

FXC.L is categorized as China Equities, while EIMI.L is Emerging Markets Equities. FXC.L tracks MSCI China NR USD, while EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FXC.L and 0.18% for EIMI.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FXC.L and EIMI.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