PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HTWN.L (HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD) and CEA1.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - HTWN.L tracks the MSCI Taiwan NR USD while CEA1.L tracks the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, HTWN.L returned 24.32%/yr vs 12.50%/yr for CEA1.L. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. HTWN.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CEA1.L.

Performance

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD (HTWN.L) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HTWN.L achieves a 71.35% return, which is significantly higher than CEA1.L's 32.80% return. Over the past 10 years, HTWN.L has outperformed CEA1.L with an annualized return of 24.32%, while CEA1.L has yielded a comparatively lower 12.50% annualized return.

HTWN.L

1D
0.78%
1M
20.41%
YTD
71.35%
6M
76.45%
1Y
124.97%
3Y*
42.23%
5Y*
23.93%
10Y*
24.32%

CEA1.L

1D
-1.00%
1M
13.24%
YTD
32.80%
6M
35.34%
1Y
64.50%
3Y*
23.79%
5Y*
9.49%
10Y*
12.50%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
HTWN.L
HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD		71.35%23.15%27.50%21.28%-20.57%29.44%31.41%29.56%-2.68%15.90%
CEA1.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)		32.80%25.23%13.67%0.79%-11.96%-4.22%23.90%13.81%-10.88%29.65%

Correlation

The correlation between HTWN.L and CEA1.L is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

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

0.80

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

0.74

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

0.72

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

0.58

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2013

0.52

Over the past year, HTWN.L and CEA1.L have become more correlated (0.80) than their long-term average of 0.52, meaning their price movements have been converging.

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
HTWN.L
CEA1.L

Technology

81.7%
49.6%

Financial Services

10.4%
13.7%

Industrials

2.3%
7.2%

Basic Materials

1.9%
3.4%

Communication Services

1.3%
6.5%

Consumer Cyclical

1.1%
9.9%

Consumer Defensive

0.7%
2.2%

Healthcare

0.6%
3.0%

Energy

-

2.5%

Real Estate

-

0.7%

Utilities

-

1.4%

Technology

HTWN.L
81.7%
CEA1.L
49.6%

Financial Services

HTWN.L
10.4%
CEA1.L
13.7%

Industrials

HTWN.L
2.3%
CEA1.L
7.2%

Basic Materials

HTWN.L
1.9%
CEA1.L
3.4%

Communication Services

HTWN.L
1.3%
CEA1.L
6.5%

Consumer Cyclical

HTWN.L
1.1%
CEA1.L
9.9%

Consumer Defensive

HTWN.L
0.7%
CEA1.L
2.2%

Healthcare

HTWN.L
0.6%
CEA1.L
3.0%

Energy

HTWN.L

-

CEA1.L
2.5%

Real Estate

HTWN.L

-

CEA1.L
0.7%

Utilities

HTWN.L

-

CEA1.L
1.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)

Often compared with HTWN.L:
HTWN.L vs. HKOR.LHTWN.L vs. PSRF.LHTWN.L vs. SCHGHTWN.L vs. FRIN.LHTWN.L vs. GLDHTWN.L vs. HSPX.LHTWN.L vs. HUKX.L
Often compared with CEA1.L:
CEA1.L vs. ADIVCEA1.L vs. EMV.LCEA1.L vs. XCX5.LCEA1.L vs. EMIM.LCEA1.L vs. IPACCEA1.L vs. IWDA.LCEA1.L vs. SPY

Return for Risk

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
HTWN.L
HTWN.L Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
HTWN.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
HTWN.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
HTWN.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
HTWN.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
HTWN.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
Martin Ratio Rank
CEA1.L
CEA1.L Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEA1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9191
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEA1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
Omega Ratio Rank
CEA1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEA1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
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.

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD (HTWN.L) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.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.

HTWN.LCEA1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
5.49
3.50

+2.00

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
6.35
4.41

+1.94

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.87

1.63

+0.24

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

14.03

5.49

+8.54

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

38.67

19.15

+19.52

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

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HTWN.L Sharpe Ratio is 5.49, which is higher than the CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HTWN.L and CEA1.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

HTWN.LCEA1.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.49

3.50

+2.00

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

1.17

0.53

+0.64

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.49

0.67

+0.81

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.13

0.53

+0.60

Drawdowns

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HTWN.L drawdown since its inception was -31.84%, smaller than the maximum CEA1.L drawdown of -33.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HTWN.L and CEA1.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

HTWN.LCEA1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.84%

-33.94%

+2.10%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.86%

-11.68%

+2.82%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.76%

-17.35%

-12.41%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.97%

-28.87%

-1.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-29.97%

-33.94%

+3.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-1.00%

+1.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.18%

-11.09%

+3.91%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.22%

3.36%

-0.14%

Volatility

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L - Volatility Comparison

HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD (HTWN.L) has a higher volatility of 9.55% compared to iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) at 8.25%. This indicates that HTWN.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEA1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

HTWN.LCEA1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.55%

8.25%

+1.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.18%

15.61%

+2.57%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.65%

18.37%

+4.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.85%

17.79%

+3.06%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.41%

18.53%

+4.88%

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

HTWN.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CEA1.L's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

HTWN.L vs. CEA1.L - Dividend Comparison

HTWN.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, while CEA1.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CEA1.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
HTWN.L
HSBC MSCI Taiwan Capped UCITS ETF USD		0.95%1.61%1.17%2.79%3.04%1.11%1.79%2.12%2.55%2.04%2.32%2.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

HTWN.L and CEA1.L have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CEA1.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CEA1.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for HTWN.L.

HTWN.L tracks MSCI Taiwan NR USD, while CEA1.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: HSBC and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for HTWN.L and 0.20% for CEA1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for HTWN.L and CEA1.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