PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IAU vs. EEM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IAU vs. EEM

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IAU (iShares Gold Trust) and EEM (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while EEM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IAU returned 12.31%/yr vs 9.91%/yr for EEM. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IAU charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for EEM.

Performance

IAU vs. EEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IAU achieves a -2.44% return, which is significantly lower than EEM's 24.07% return. Over the past 10 years, IAU has outperformed EEM with an annualized return of 12.31%, while EEM has yielded a comparatively lower 9.91% annualized return.

IAU

1D
0.08%
1M
-9.54%
YTD
-2.44%
6M
-2.22%
1Y
22.32%
3Y*
29.07%
5Y*
17.23%
10Y*
12.31%

EEM

1D
0.56%
1M
0.74%
YTD
24.07%
6M
26.94%
1Y
47.57%
3Y*
21.60%
5Y*
6.56%
10Y*
9.91%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IAU vs. EEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IAU
iShares Gold Trust		-2.44%63.95%26.85%12.84%-0.63%-4.00%25.03%17.98%-1.76%12.91%
EEM
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		24.07%33.98%6.49%8.95%-20.56%-3.63%17.02%18.22%-15.31%37.26%

Correlation

The correlation between IAU and EEM is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.38

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

0.36

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

0.32

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

0.23

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 28, 2005

0.21

The correlation between IAU and EEM shifts across timeframes, from 0.21 (all time) to 0.38 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IAU vs. EEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IAU
EEM

Real Estate

100.0%
0.9%

Basic Materials

-

6.1%

Communication Services

-

5.7%

Consumer Cyclical

-

8.1%

Consumer Defensive

-

2.7%

Energy

-

3.3%

Financial Services

-

17.5%

Healthcare

-

2.5%

Industrials

-

6.2%

Technology

-

43.6%

Utilities

-

2.0%

Real Estate

IAU
100.0%
EEM
0.9%

Basic Materials

IAU

-

EEM
6.1%

Communication Services

IAU

-

EEM
5.7%

Consumer Cyclical

IAU

-

EEM
8.1%

Consumer Defensive

IAU

-

EEM
2.7%

Energy

IAU

-

EEM
3.3%

Financial Services

IAU

-

EEM
17.5%

Healthcare

IAU

-

EEM
2.5%

Industrials

IAU

-

EEM
6.2%

Technology

IAU

-

EEM
43.6%

Utilities

IAU

-

EEM
2.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Gold Trust

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF

Often compared with IAU:
IAU vs. GLDIAU vs. GLDMIAU vs. IAUMIAU vs. SGOLIAU vs. GDXIAU vs. VOOIAU vs. PHYS
Often compared with EEM:
EEM vs. VWOEEM vs. SPYEEM vs. IEMGEEM vs. IS3N.DEEEM vs. VXUSEEM vs. EEMSEEM vs. SPEM

Return for Risk

IAU vs. EEM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IAU
IAU Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
IAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2828
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
IAU Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
IAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
IAU Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
EEM
EEM Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
EEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7070
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEM Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
EEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEM Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
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.

IAU vs. EEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

IAUEEMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.89
2.10

-1.21

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.25
2.73

-1.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.40

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.99

3.36

-2.37

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.83

12.38

-9.55

IAU vs. EEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAU Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the EEM Sharpe Ratio of 2.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAU and EEM, 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...

Drawdowns

IAU vs. EEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAU drawdown since its inception was -45.14%, smaller than the maximum EEM drawdown of -66.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAU and EEM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IAUEEMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.14%

-66.43%

+21.29%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-24.40%

-13.52%

-10.88%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.40%

-17.29%

-7.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.40%

-37.49%

+13.09%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-24.40%

-39.82%

+15.42%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-22.03%

-4.12%

-17.91%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.97%

-16.00%

+0.03%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.47%

3.67%

+4.80%

Volatility

IAU vs. EEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Gold Trust (IAU) is 7.70%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) has a volatility of 10.80%. This indicates that IAU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IAUEEMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.70%

10.80%

-3.10%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.94%

19.39%

+4.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

27.17%

21.64%

+5.53%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.16%

19.26%

-1.10%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.02%

20.64%

-4.62%

IAU vs. EEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

IAU has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EEM's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

IAU vs. EEM - Dividend Comparison

IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEM
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		1.79%2.22%2.43%2.63%2.50%1.99%1.45%2.76%2.24%1.89%1.89%2.49%
IAU
iShares Gold Trust		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

IAU and EEM have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EEM has higher volatility (10.80%) compared to IAU (7.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAU dropped -45.14% vs EEM's -66.43%.

On 10-year performance, IAU leads with 12.31% vs 9.91% for EEM. On fees, IAU is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, IAU has been the lower-risk option at 7.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IAU has performed better with a 12.31% return vs 9.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IAU is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for EEM.

EEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.

IAU is categorized as Gold, while EEM is Emerging Markets Diversified. IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price, while EEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net). Their fees differ too: 0.25% for IAU and 0.72% for EEM.

EEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.10 vs 0.89), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IAU and EEM

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