IEEM.L vs. HMEF.L
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) (IEEM.L) and HSBC MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD (HMEF.L).
IEEM.L and HMEF.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IEEM.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI EM NR USD. It was launched on Nov 18, 2005. HMEF.L is a passively managed fund by HSBC that tracks the performance of the MSCI EM NR USD. It was launched on Sep 5, 2011. Both IEEM.L and HMEF.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: IEEM.L or HMEF.L.
Key characteristics
| IEEM.L | HMEF.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 11.72% | 10.76% |
| 1Y Return | 14.96% | 13.71% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 0.68% | -0.06% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 4.78% | 3.94% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 6.40% | 5.65% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.09 | 1.02 |
| Sortino Ratio | 1.62 | 1.53 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.20 | 1.19 |
| Calmar Ratio | 0.67 | 0.58 |
| Martin Ratio | 5.42 | 5.18 |
| Ulcer Index | 2.76% | 2.67% |
| Daily Std Dev | 13.73% | 13.46% |
| Max Drawdown | -53.22% | -31.72% |
| Current Drawdown | -6.88% | -9.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between IEEM.L and HMEF.L is 0.99, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
IEEM.L vs. HMEF.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, IEEM.L achieves a 11.72% return, which is significantly higher than HMEF.L's 10.76% return. Over the past 10 years, IEEM.L has outperformed HMEF.L with an annualized return of 6.40%, while HMEF.L has yielded a comparatively lower 5.65% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
IEEM.L vs. HMEF.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IEEM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than HMEF.L's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
IEEM.L vs. HMEF.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) (IEEM.L) and HSBC MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD (HMEF.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.
Dividends
IEEM.L vs. HMEF.L - Dividend Comparison
IEEM.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.78%, more than HMEF.L's 2.29% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IEEM.L iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) | 2.78% | 2.91% | 3.40% | 2.74% | 1.98% | 2.32% | 2.51% | 1.86% | 2.09% | 3.38% | 3.31% | 2.72% |
HMEF.L HSBC MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD | 2.29% | 2.58% | 2.99% | 2.01% | 1.66% | 2.11% | 2.14% | 1.61% | 1.69% | 2.25% | 1.92% | 2.12% |
Drawdowns
IEEM.L vs. HMEF.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IEEM.L drawdown since its inception was -53.22%, which is greater than HMEF.L's maximum drawdown of -31.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEEM.L and HMEF.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
IEEM.L vs. HMEF.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI EM UCITS ETF (Dist) (IEEM.L) and HSBC MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF USD (HMEF.L) have volatilities of 6.24% and 6.11%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.