GIND vs. EWH

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GIND (Goldman Sachs India Equity ETF) and EWH (iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. GIND is actively managed, while EWH is passively managed. Over the past year, GIND returned -12.45% vs 22.22% for EWH. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GIND charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for EWH.

Performance

GIND vs. EWH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs India Equity ETF (GIND) and iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF (EWH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GIND achieves a -11.01% return, which is significantly lower than EWH's 5.98% return.

GIND

• 1D: 1.66%
• 1M: -2.03%
• YTD: -11.01%
• 6M: -10.72%
• 1Y: -12.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EWH

• 1D: -1.27%
• 1M: -5.02%
• YTD: 5.98%
• 6M: 5.27%
• 1Y: 22.22%
• 3Y*: 9.34%
• 5Y*: -0.21%
• 10Y*: 4.68%

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

GIND vs. EWH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GIND Goldman Sachs India Equity ETF	-11.01%	4.55%
EWH iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF	5.98%	28.19%

Correlation

The correlation between GIND and EWH is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2025	0.31

GIND vs. EWH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GIND	EWH
Financial Services	28.9%	45.4%
Consumer Cyclical	15.9%	3.7%
Industrials	10.7%	16.6%
Basic Materials	9.2%	-
Technology	9.0%	-
Healthcare	8.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.7%	2.7%
Energy	4.1%	-
Utilities	2.9%	11.2%
Communication Services	2.8%	1.7%
Real Estate	2.2%	18.7%

Return for Risk

GIND vs. EWH — Risk / Return Rank

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

GIND

GIND Risk / Return Rank: 3
GIND Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
GIND Sortino Ratio Rank: 3
GIND Omega Ratio Rank: 3
GIND Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
GIND Martin Ratio Rank: 2

EWH

EWH Risk / Return Rank: 43
EWH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
EWH Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
EWH Omega Ratio Rank: 37
EWH Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
EWH Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

GIND vs. EWH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs India Equity ETF (GIND) and iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF (EWH). 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.

	GIND	EWH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.77	1.37	-2.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.05	1.97	-3.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.88	1.24	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.54	2.70	-3.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.30	7.10	-8.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GIND vs. EWH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GIND Sharpe Ratio is -0.77, which is lower than the EWH Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GIND and EWH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GIND	EWH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.77	1.37	-2.14
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.01	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.24	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.35	0.18	-0.53

Drawdowns

GIND vs. EWH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GIND drawdown since its inception was -22.97%, smaller than the maximum EWH drawdown of -66.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GIND and EWH.

Drawdown Indicators

	GIND	EWH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.97%	-66.44%	+43.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-22.97%	-8.27%	-14.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.93%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-41.46%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.71%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.63%	-8.27%	-7.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.88%	-19.48%	+12.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.57%	3.14%	+6.43%

Volatility

GIND vs. EWH - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs India Equity ETF (GIND) has a higher volatility of 5.92% compared to iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF (EWH) at 4.94%. This indicates that GIND's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EWH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GIND	EWH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.92%	4.94%	+0.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.12%	11.78%	+2.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.31%	16.29%	+0.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.18%	20.00%	-2.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.18%	19.56%	-2.38%

GIND vs. EWH - Expense Ratio Comparison

GIND has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than EWH's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

GIND vs. EWH - Dividend Comparison

GIND has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EWH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.90%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWH iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF	4.90%	5.20%	4.17%	4.28%	2.91%	2.78%	2.56%	2.71%	2.93%	4.35%	3.08%	2.63%
GIND Goldman Sachs India Equity 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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GIND and EWH in my portfolio?

GIND and EWH have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GIND or EWH?

GIND has higher volatility (5.92%) compared to EWH (4.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GIND dropped -22.97% vs EWH's -66.44%.

Which ETF is better, GIND or EWH?

On 1-year performance, EWH leads with 22.22% vs -12.45% for GIND. On fees, EWH is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EWH has been the lower-risk option at 4.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GIND or EWH?

Over the 1-year period, EWH has performed better with a 22.22% return vs -12.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GIND or EWH?

EWH is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GIND.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GIND or EWH?

EWH has the higher dividend yield at 4.90%, compared with 0.00% for GIND.

What is the main difference between GIND and EWH?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GIND and 0.49% for EWH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.37 vs -0.77), 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.