ICGA.DE vs. CEBL.DE
ICGA.DE (iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF USD Acc) and CEBL.DE (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - ICGA.DE is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China, while CEBL.DE is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ICGA.DE returned -4.32%/yr vs 8.97%/yr for CEBL.DE. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ICGA.DE charges 0.28%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CEBL.DE.
Performance
ICGA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ICGA.DE achieves a -6.86% return, which is significantly lower than CEBL.DE's 31.90% return.
ICGA.DE
- 1D
- -0.54%
- 1M
- -2.09%
- YTD
- -6.86%
- 6M
- -8.51%
- 1Y
- 2.73%
- 3Y*
- 7.72%
- 5Y*
- -4.32%
- 10Y*
- —
CEBL.DE
- 1D
- -1.89%
- 1M
- 7.90%
- YTD
- 31.90%
- 6M
- 34.52%
- 1Y
- 55.49%
- 3Y*
- 22.99%
- 5Y*
- 8.97%
- 10Y*
- 11.02%
ICGA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ICGA.DE iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF USD Acc | -6.86% | 16.64% | 27.28% | -14.71% | -15.17% | -17.27% | 15.31% | 14.05% |
CEBL.DE iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) | 31.90% | 19.13% | 18.60% | 3.15% | -15.54% | 2.03% | 15.18% | 11.88% |
Correlation
The correlation between ICGA.DE and CEBL.DE is 0.67, 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 | 0.67 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.73 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.81 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 26, 2019 | 0.84 |
The correlation between ICGA.DE and CEBL.DE shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (1 year) to 0.84 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ICGA.DE vs. CEBL.DE — Risk / Return Rank
ICGA.DE
CEBL.DE
ICGA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF USD Acc (ICGA.DE) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE). 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.
| ICGA.DE | CEBL.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.66 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.41 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | 1.50 | -0.46 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.16 | 4.83 | -4.67 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.34 | 17.67 | -17.33 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ICGA.DE | CEBL.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.15 | 2.81 | -2.66 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.15 | 0.48 | -0.63 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.58 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.05 | 0.43 | -0.39 |
Drawdowns
ICGA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ICGA.DE drawdown since its inception was -55.95%, which is greater than CEBL.DE's maximum drawdown of -35.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICGA.DE and CEBL.DE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ICGA.DE | CEBL.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -55.95% | -35.09% | -20.86% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.84% | -11.43% | -5.41% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.41% | -20.53% | -3.88% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -49.32% | -29.00% | -20.32% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -33.12% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -32.56% | -2.85% | -29.71% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.80% | -11.09% | -17.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.08% | 3.13% | +4.95% |
Volatility
ICGA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF USD Acc (ICGA.DE) is 7.19%, while iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE) has a volatility of 8.24%. This indicates that ICGA.DE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEBL.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ICGA.DE | CEBL.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.19% | 8.24% | -1.05% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.31% | 16.36% | -3.05% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.64% | 19.68% | -1.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.66% | 18.48% | +9.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.97% | 18.94% | +8.03% |
ICGA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
ICGA.DE has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than CEBL.DE's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
ICGA.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither ICGA.DE nor CEBL.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
ICGA.DE and CEBL.DE have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CEBL.DE is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CEBL.DE is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for ICGA.DE.
ICGA.DE is categorized as China Equities, while CEBL.DE is Asia Pacific Equities. ICGA.DE tracks MSCI China, while CEBL.DE tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for ICGA.DE and 0.20% for CEBL.DE.
Find the right allocation for ICGA.DE and CEBL.DE
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