PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

IEMS.L (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF) and CUKX.L (iShares FTSE 100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IEMS.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap, while CUKX.L is a fund fund tracking the FTSE 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IEMS.L returned 9.32%/yr vs 8.13%/yr for CUKX.L. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IEMS.L charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for CUKX.L.

Performance

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF (IEMS.L) and iShares FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (CUKX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

IEMS.L is traded in USD, while CUKX.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CUKX.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IEMS.L achieves a 15.99% return, which is significantly higher than CUKX.L's 4.92% return. Over the past 10 years, IEMS.L has outperformed CUKX.L with an annualized return of 9.32%, while CUKX.L has yielded a comparatively lower 8.13% annualized return.

IEMS.L

1D
-0.70%
1M
-1.03%
YTD
15.99%
6M
16.76%
1Y
29.31%
3Y*
17.49%
5Y*
7.12%
10Y*
9.32%

CUKX.L

1D
-0.65%
1M
-2.53%
YTD
4.92%
6M
8.65%
1Y
19.30%
3Y*
17.37%
5Y*
10.40%
10Y*
8.13%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IEMS.L
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF		15.99%19.35%2.60%23.28%-18.98%19.00%18.41%10.59%-19.12%34.91%
CUKX.L
iShares FTSE 100 UCITS ETF		4.92%35.27%7.48%13.40%-6.25%16.41%-8.56%21.93%-14.20%23.16%

Correlation

The correlation between IEMS.L and CUKX.L is 0.50, 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

0.50

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

0.56

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

0.60

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

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 17, 2010

0.63

The correlation between IEMS.L and CUKX.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (1 year) to 0.63 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IEMS.L
CUKX.L

Technology

22.6%
0.8%

Industrials

18.6%
13.7%

Financial Services

10.9%
25.0%

Consumer Cyclical

9.8%
5.0%

Basic Materials

9.5%
8.9%

Healthcare

9.4%
13.6%

Real Estate

6.0%
0.9%

Consumer Defensive

5.3%
13.2%

Communication Services

2.9%
2.6%

Utilities

2.7%
5.1%

Energy

2.3%
11.3%

Technology

IEMS.L
22.6%
CUKX.L
0.8%

Industrials

IEMS.L
18.6%
CUKX.L
13.7%

Financial Services

IEMS.L
10.9%
CUKX.L
25.0%

Consumer Cyclical

IEMS.L
9.8%
CUKX.L
5.0%

Basic Materials

IEMS.L
9.5%
CUKX.L
8.9%

Healthcare

IEMS.L
9.4%
CUKX.L
13.6%

Real Estate

IEMS.L
6.0%
CUKX.L
0.9%

Consumer Defensive

IEMS.L
5.3%
CUKX.L
13.2%

Communication Services

IEMS.L
2.9%
CUKX.L
2.6%

Utilities

IEMS.L
2.7%
CUKX.L
5.1%

Energy

IEMS.L
2.3%
CUKX.L
11.3%

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 Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF

iShares FTSE 100 UCITS ETF

Often compared with IEMS.L:
IEMS.L vs. AVEMIEMS.L vs. IEMGIEMS.L vs. HEEMIEMS.L vs. BKEMIEMS.L vs. EEMSIEMS.L vs. EMSM.LIEMS.L vs. IAAAX
Often compared with CUKX.L:
CUKX.L vs. VUKG.LCUKX.L vs. IUKD.LCUKX.L vs. FTAL.LCUKX.L vs. CSUK.LCUKX.L vs. VUKE.DECUKX.L vs. S100.LCUKX.L vs. CPJ1.L

Return for Risk

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IEMS.L
IEMS.L Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
IEMS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank
CUKX.L
CUKX.L Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
CUKX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CUKX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
CUKX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
CUKX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
CUKX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
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.

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF (IEMS.L) and iShares FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (CUKX.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.

IEMS.LCUKX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.62
1.44

+0.18

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.34
2.05

+0.29

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.26

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.05

1.95

+1.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.31

6.65

+3.66

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IEMS.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.62, which is comparable to the CUKX.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IEMS.L and CUKX.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

IEMS.LCUKX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.62

1.44

+0.18

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.41

0.63

-0.22

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

0.44

+0.07

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.53

0.37

+0.17

Drawdowns

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IEMS.L drawdown since its inception was -49.94%, which is greater than CUKX.L's maximum drawdown of -42.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IEMS.L and CUKX.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IEMS.LCUKX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-49.94%

-42.20%

-7.74%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.60%

-9.84%

+0.24%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.90%

-13.17%

-7.73%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.85%

-26.11%

-1.74%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-49.94%

-42.20%

-7.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.19%

-5.18%

+2.99%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.38%

-7.72%

-3.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.85%

2.89%

-0.04%

Volatility

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF (IEMS.L) has a higher volatility of 7.31% compared to iShares FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (CUKX.L) at 4.43%. This indicates that IEMS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CUKX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IEMS.LCUKX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.31%

4.43%

+2.88%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.68%

11.30%

+4.38%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.10%

13.39%

+4.71%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.45%

16.46%

+0.99%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.32%

18.34%

-0.02%

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IEMS.L has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than CUKX.L's 0.07% expense ratio.

Dividends

IEMS.L vs. CUKX.L - Dividend Comparison

IEMS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, while CUKX.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CUKX.L
iShares FTSE 100 UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
IEMS.L
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF		1.61%1.70%1.81%2.09%2.47%1.29%1.62%2.05%2.19%1.32%2.08%0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

IEMS.L and CUKX.L have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CUKX.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CUKX.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for IEMS.L.

IEMS.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap, while CUKX.L tracks FTSE 100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for IEMS.L and 0.07% for CUKX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IEMS.L and CUKX.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