IASMX vs. FEAAX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

IASMX (Guinness Atkinson Asia Focus Fund) and FEAAX (Fidelity Advisor Emerging Asia Fund Class A) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. Over the past 10 years, IASMX returned 9.22%/yr vs 15.88%/yr for FEAAX. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IASMX charges 1.98%/yr vs 1.20%/yr for FEAAX.

Performance

IASMX vs. FEAAX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Guinness Atkinson Asia Focus Fund (IASMX) and Fidelity Advisor Emerging Asia Fund Class A (FEAAX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IASMX achieves a 17.26% return, which is significantly lower than FEAAX's 37.44% return. Over the past 10 years, IASMX has underperformed FEAAX with an annualized return of 9.22%, while FEAAX has yielded a comparatively higher 15.88% annualized return.

IASMX

• 1D: 1.98%
• 1M: 5.91%
• YTD: 17.26%
• 6M: 19.13%
• 1Y: 41.36%
• 3Y*: 17.30%
• 5Y*: 1.50%
• 10Y*: 9.22%

FEAAX

• 1D: 2.17%
• 1M: 12.41%
• YTD: 37.44%
• 6M: 42.13%
• 1Y: 72.87%
• 3Y*: 34.14%
• 5Y*: 7.97%
• 10Y*: 15.88%

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

IASMX vs. FEAAX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IASMX Guinness Atkinson Asia Focus Fund	17.26%	29.64%	4.38%	5.95%	-28.04%	-6.46%	26.02%	29.32%	-17.58%	47.12%
FEAAX Fidelity Advisor Emerging Asia Fund Class A	37.44%	36.67%	20.63%	13.50%	-30.79%	-15.06%	72.51%	30.64%	-15.11%	45.96%

Correlation

The correlation between IASMX and FEAAX is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 30, 1996	0.84

The correlation between IASMX and FEAAX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

IASMX vs. FEAAX — Risk / Return Rank

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

IASMX

IASMX Risk / Return Rank: 68
IASMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
IASMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
IASMX Omega Ratio Rank: 59
IASMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
IASMX Martin Ratio Rank: 63

FEAAX

FEAAX Risk / Return Rank: 93
FEAAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
FEAAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
FEAAX Omega Ratio Rank: 91
FEAAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
FEAAX Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

IASMX vs. FEAAX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Guinness Atkinson Asia Focus Fund (IASMX) and Fidelity Advisor Emerging Asia Fund Class A (FEAAX). 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.

	IASMX	FEAAX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	3.78	-1.33
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.29	4.49	-1.21
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.67	-0.24
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.97	5.37	-1.40
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.39	19.52	-7.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IASMX vs. FEAAX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IASMX Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is lower than the FEAAX Sharpe Ratio of 3.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IASMX and FEAAX, 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

	IASMX	FEAAX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.46	3.78	-1.33
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07	0.35	-0.28
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	0.76	-0.31
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	0.39	-0.21

Drawdowns

IASMX vs. FEAAX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IASMX drawdown since its inception was -76.53%, which is greater than FEAAX's maximum drawdown of -60.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IASMX and FEAAX.

Drawdown Indicators

	IASMX	FEAAX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-76.53%	-60.87%	-15.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.00%	-13.56%	+3.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.62%	-17.33%	-2.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.13%	-53.46%	+6.33%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.51%	-57.90%	+5.39%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.75%	0.00%	-2.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-33.22%	-20.20%	-13.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.21%	3.73%	-0.52%

Volatility

IASMX vs. FEAAX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Guinness Atkinson Asia Focus Fund (IASMX) is 6.16%, while Fidelity Advisor Emerging Asia Fund Class A (FEAAX) has a volatility of 8.50%. This indicates that IASMX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FEAAX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IASMX	FEAAX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.16%	8.50%	-2.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.11%	16.59%	-3.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.85%	19.79%	-2.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.37%	22.89%	-1.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.75%	20.97%	-0.22%

IASMX vs. FEAAX - Expense Ratio Comparison

IASMX has a 1.98% expense ratio, which is higher than FEAAX's 1.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

IASMX vs. FEAAX - Dividend Comparison

IASMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.90%, while FEAAX has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FEAAX Fidelity Advisor Emerging Asia Fund Class A	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	12.88%	6.62%	5.21%	6.49%	0.03%	1.10%	0.84%
IASMX Guinness Atkinson Asia Focus Fund	5.90%	6.92%	1.51%	1.16%	3.40%	9.14%	5.78%	6.61%	12.82%	0.90%	1.44%	1.18%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IASMX and FEAAX in my portfolio?

IASMX and FEAAX 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.

Which is riskier, IASMX or FEAAX?

FEAAX has higher volatility (8.50%) compared to IASMX (6.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IASMX dropped -76.53% vs FEAAX's -60.87%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FEAAX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.78 vs 2.46), 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.