IBB vs. EEMA

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IBB (iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF) and EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBB is a Health & Biotech Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ Biotechnology Index, while EEMA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IBB returned 7.19%/yr vs 10.78%/yr for EEMA. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IBB charges 0.47%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EEMA.

Performance

IBB vs. EEMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBB achieves a 1.19% return, which is significantly lower than EEMA's 23.70% return. Over the past 10 years, IBB has underperformed EEMA with an annualized return of 7.19%, while EEMA has yielded a comparatively higher 10.78% annualized return.

IBB

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -1.15%
• YTD: 1.19%
• 6M: 0.91%
• 1Y: 32.61%
• 3Y*: 9.42%
• 5Y*: 1.30%
• 10Y*: 7.19%

EEMA

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: 0.51%
• YTD: 23.70%
• 6M: 27.45%
• 1Y: 44.66%
• 3Y*: 22.04%
• 5Y*: 6.58%
• 10Y*: 10.78%

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

IBB vs. EEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IBB iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF	1.19%	27.98%	-2.41%	3.76%	-13.69%	0.95%	26.01%	25.42%	-9.53%	21.08%
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	23.70%	33.27%	10.23%	6.57%	-21.49%	-4.22%	25.17%	18.60%	-15.76%	43.41%

Correlation

The correlation between IBB and EEMA is 0.39, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.42
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2012	0.44

IBB vs. EEMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IBB	EEMA
Healthcare	100.0%	3.7%
Basic Materials	-	4.5%
Communication Services	-	6.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	11.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.8%
Energy	-	3.2%
Financial Services	-	15.9%
Industrials	-	8.8%
Real Estate	-	0.8%
Technology	-	41.2%
Utilities	-	1.8%

Return for Risk

IBB vs. EEMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBB

IBB Risk / Return Rank: 60
IBB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
IBB Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
IBB Omega Ratio Rank: 49
IBB Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
IBB Martin Ratio Rank: 66

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 72
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 76
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

IBB vs. EEMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). 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.

	IBB	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	2.07	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.34	2.72	-0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.39	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.40	3.14	+0.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.49	11.43	-0.94

IBB vs. EEMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBB Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is comparable to the EEMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBB and EEMA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IBB vs. EEMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBB drawdown since its inception was -62.85%, which is greater than EEMA's maximum drawdown of -44.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBB and EEMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBB	EEMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.85%	-44.18%	-18.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.63%	-14.30%	+4.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.85%	-20.23%	-4.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.82%	-40.46%	+0.64%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.82%	-44.18%	+4.36%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.86%	-4.33%	+0.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.16%	-13.95%	-7.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.14%	3.92%	-0.78%

Volatility

IBB vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) is 7.73%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a volatility of 10.16%. This indicates that IBB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBB	EEMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.73%	10.16%	-2.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.86%	18.97%	-3.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.35%	21.67%	-1.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.00%	20.66%	+1.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.23%	20.97%	+2.26%

IBB vs. EEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

IBB has a 0.47% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMA's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

IBB vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison

IBB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%, less than EEMA's 1.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.19%	1.48%	1.74%	2.02%	1.78%	2.19%	1.15%	1.86%	2.17%	1.74%	1.74%	2.44%
IBB iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF	0.23%	0.23%	0.29%	0.26%	0.31%	0.21%	0.21%	0.33%	0.20%	0.30%	0.19%	0.03%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBB and EEMA in my portfolio?

IBB and EEMA have a correlation of 0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IBB or EEMA?

EEMA has higher volatility (10.16%) compared to IBB (7.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBB dropped -62.85% vs EEMA's -44.18%.

Which ETF is better, IBB or EEMA?

On 10-year performance, EEMA leads with 10.78% vs 7.19% for IBB. On fees, IBB is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, IBB has been the lower-risk option at 7.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IBB or EEMA?

Over the 10-year period, EEMA has performed better with a 10.78% return vs 7.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IBB or EEMA?

IBB is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EEMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IBB or EEMA?

EEMA has the higher dividend yield at 1.19%, compared with 0.23% for IBB.

What is the main difference between IBB and EEMA?

IBB is categorized as Health & Biotech Equities, while EEMA is Asia Pacific Equities. IBB tracks NASDAQ Biotechnology Index, while EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Their fees differ too: 0.47% for IBB and 0.50% for EEMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.61), 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.