PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L

Last updated Jul 22, 2026
Documentation

IDNA.L (iShares MSCI North America UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and EMAD.L (State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - IDNA.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI North America Index (USD), while EMAD.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IDNA.L returned 14.22%/yr vs 9.86%/yr for EMAD.L. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IDNA.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for EMAD.L.

Performance

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI North America UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (IDNA.L) and State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IDNA.L achieves a 9.13% return, which is significantly lower than EMAD.L's 23.55% return. Over the past 10 years, IDNA.L has outperformed EMAD.L with an annualized return of 14.22%, while EMAD.L has yielded a comparatively lower 9.86% annualized return.

IDNA.L

1D
0.19%
1M
0.34%
6M
9.46%
YTD
9.13%
1Y
19.18%
3Y*
19.16%
5Y*
11.96%
10Y*
14.22%
ALL TIME*
9.84%

EMAD.L

1D
2.44%
1M
-8.25%
6M
16.52%
YTD
23.55%
1Y
35.83%
3Y*
22.13%
5Y*
7.02%
10Y*
9.86%
ALL TIME*
6.27%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IDNA.L
iShares MSCI North America UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		9.13%17.55%24.50%26.38%-19.84%27.07%19.54%30.25%-6.70%21.02%
EMAD.L
State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		23.55%32.13%11.12%6.54%-21.75%-6.15%28.24%16.78%-14.40%42.49%

Correlation

The correlation between IDNA.L and EMAD.L is 0.65, 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

0.65

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

0.61

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

0.63

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

0.65

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2011

0.60

The correlation between IDNA.L and EMAD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IDNA.L
EMAD.L

Technology

36.2%
54.6%

Financial Services

13.3%
13.5%

Communication Services

9.8%
5.9%

Consumer Cyclical

9.3%
7.9%

Industrials

8.6%
6.2%

Healthcare

8.6%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

4.4%
1.9%

Energy

3.9%
2.2%

Basic Materials

2.2%
3.1%

Utilities

2.1%
1.2%

Real Estate

1.7%
0.6%

Technology

IDNA.L
36.2%
EMAD.L
54.6%

Financial Services

IDNA.L
13.3%
EMAD.L
13.5%

Communication Services

IDNA.L
9.8%
EMAD.L
5.9%

Consumer Cyclical

IDNA.L
9.3%
EMAD.L
7.9%

Industrials

IDNA.L
8.6%
EMAD.L
6.2%

Healthcare

IDNA.L
8.6%
EMAD.L
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

IDNA.L
4.4%
EMAD.L
1.9%

Energy

IDNA.L
3.9%
EMAD.L
2.2%

Basic Materials

IDNA.L
2.2%
EMAD.L
3.1%

Utilities

IDNA.L
2.1%
EMAD.L
1.2%

Real Estate

IDNA.L
1.7%
EMAD.L
0.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI North America UCITS ETF USD (Dist)

State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)

Often compared with IDNA.L:
IDNA.L vs. CSP1.LIDNA.L vs. EIMI.LIDNA.L vs. IUIT.LIDNA.L vs. FLXK.LIDNA.L vs. G500.LIDNA.L vs. IITU.LIDNA.L vs. QUID.L
Often compared with EMAD.L:
EMAD.L vs. BBUD.LEMAD.L vs. EEDS.LEMAD.L vs. ISUS.LEMAD.L vs. IDTW.LEMAD.L vs. 5HED.LEMAD.L vs. UFSD.LEMAD.L vs. DGRP.L

Return for Risk

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IDNA.L
IDNA.L Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
IDNA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IDNA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
IDNA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
IDNA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
IDNA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank
EMAD.L
EMAD.L Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
EMAD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMAD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMAD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
EMAD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMAD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
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.

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI North America UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (IDNA.L) and State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.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.

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.

IDNA.LEMAD.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.58
1.50

+0.08

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.37
2.05

+0.32

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.27

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.29

2.65

-0.37

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.24

7.63

+1.61

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IDNA.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is comparable to the EMAD.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IDNA.L and EMAD.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...

Drawdowns

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IDNA.L drawdown since its inception was -56.08%, which is greater than EMAD.L's maximum drawdown of -46.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IDNA.L and EMAD.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IDNA.LEMAD.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-56.08%

-46.17%

-9.91%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.35%

-13.45%

+5.10%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.54%

-20.03%

+1.49%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.10%

-38.62%

+13.52%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.62%

-46.17%

+11.55%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.32%

-10.06%

+8.74%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.94%

-14.71%

+5.77%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.07%

4.69%

-2.62%

Volatility

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI North America UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (IDNA.L) is 3.08%, while State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) has a volatility of 10.09%. This indicates that IDNA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMAD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IDNA.LEMAD.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.08%

10.09%

-7.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.23%

21.39%

-12.16%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.08%

23.78%

-11.70%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.14%

20.85%

-4.71%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.21%

20.19%

-3.98%

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IDNA.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than EMAD.L's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

IDNA.L vs. EMAD.L - Dividend Comparison

IDNA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, while EMAD.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMAD.L
State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (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%
IDNA.L
iShares MSCI North America UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		0.60%0.66%0.77%0.96%1.13%0.76%1.03%1.23%1.45%1.27%1.42%1.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

IDNA.L and EMAD.L have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IDNA.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IDNA.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAD.L.

IDNA.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while EMAD.L is Asia Pacific Equities. IDNA.L tracks MSCI North America Index (USD), while EMAD.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for IDNA.L and 0.55% for EMAD.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IDNA.L and EMAD.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