HMEF.L vs. IEEM.L
Compare and contrast key facts about HSBC MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD (HMEF.L) and iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) (IEEM.L).
HMEF.L and IEEM.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. HMEF.L is a passively managed fund by HSBC that tracks the performance of the MSCI EM NR USD. It was launched on Sep 5, 2011. IEEM.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI EM NR USD. It was launched on Nov 18, 2005. Both HMEF.L and IEEM.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: HMEF.L or IEEM.L.
Key characteristics
| HMEF.L | IEEM.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 12.22% | 13.03% |
| 1Y Return | 15.33% | 16.41% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 0.38% | 1.07% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 4.21% | 5.12% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 5.79% | 6.53% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.24 | 1.19 |
| Sortino Ratio | 1.83 | 1.76 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.22 | 1.22 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.70 | 0.73 |
| Martin Ratio | 6.30 | 6.03 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.66% | 2.72% |
| Daily Std Dev | 13.52% | 13.77% |
| Max Drawdown | -31.72% | -53.22% |
| Current Drawdown | -8.52% | -5.79% |
Correlation
The correlation between HMEF.L and IEEM.L is 0.99, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
HMEF.L vs. IEEM.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, HMEF.L achieves a 12.22% return, which is significantly lower than IEEM.L's 13.03% return. Over the past 10 years, HMEF.L has underperformed IEEM.L with an annualized return of 5.79%, while IEEM.L has yielded a comparatively higher 6.53% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
HMEF.L vs. IEEM.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
HMEF.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IEEM.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%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
HMEF.L vs. IEEM.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD (HMEF.L) and iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) (IEEM.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.
Dividends
HMEF.L vs. IEEM.L - Dividend Comparison
HMEF.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.26%, less than IEEM.L's 2.75% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HMEF.L HSBC MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD | 2.26% | 2.58% | 2.99% | 2.01% | 1.66% | 2.11% | 2.14% | 1.61% | 1.69% | 2.25% | 1.92% | 2.12% |
IEEM.L iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) | 2.75% | 2.91% | 3.40% | 2.74% | 1.98% | 2.32% | 2.51% | 1.86% | 2.09% | 3.38% | 3.31% | 2.72% |
Drawdowns
HMEF.L vs. IEEM.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum HMEF.L drawdown since its inception was -31.72%, smaller than the maximum IEEM.L drawdown of -53.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HMEF.L and IEEM.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
HMEF.L vs. IEEM.L - Volatility Comparison
HSBC MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD (HMEF.L) and iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) (IEEM.L) have volatilities of 6.13% and 6.24%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.