PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
INAA.L vs. EIMI.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

INAA.L (iShares MSCI North America UCITS) and EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - INAA.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, while EIMI.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, INAA.L returned 15.50%/yr vs 11.09%/yr for EIMI.L. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. INAA.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EIMI.L.

Performance

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI North America UCITS (INAA.L) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INAA.L achieves a 10.28% return, which is significantly lower than EIMI.L's 24.75% return. Over the past 10 years, INAA.L has outperformed EIMI.L with an annualized return of 15.50%, while EIMI.L has yielded a comparatively lower 11.09% annualized return.

INAA.L

1D
0.05%
1M
5.57%
YTD
10.28%
6M
10.24%
1Y
28.60%
3Y*
18.80%
5Y*
14.13%
10Y*
15.50%

EIMI.L

1D
-1.30%
1M
5.47%
YTD
24.75%
6M
26.33%
1Y
50.86%
3Y*
20.20%
5Y*
8.77%
10Y*
11.09%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
INAA.L
iShares MSCI North America UCITS		10.28%9.48%26.59%19.48%-10.23%28.62%15.54%25.93%-1.17%10.17%
EIMI.L
iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF		24.75%22.75%9.23%5.48%-10.12%0.29%15.31%11.94%-9.08%25.11%

Correlation

The correlation between INAA.L and EIMI.L is 0.58, 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

0.58

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

0.54

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

0.54

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

0.60

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 10, 2014

0.61

The correlation between INAA.L and EIMI.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
INAA.L
EIMI.L

Technology

36.4%
35.0%

Financial Services

12.4%
18.4%

Communication Services

10.4%
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
9.6%

Industrials

8.2%
8.9%

Healthcare

8.1%
3.7%

Consumer Defensive

4.6%
3.3%

Energy

4.1%
3.9%

Basic Materials

2.3%
6.9%

Utilities

2.1%
2.2%

Real Estate

1.8%
1.7%

Technology

INAA.L
36.4%
EIMI.L
35.0%

Financial Services

INAA.L
12.4%
EIMI.L
18.4%

Communication Services

INAA.L
10.4%
EIMI.L
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

INAA.L
9.6%
EIMI.L
9.6%

Industrials

INAA.L
8.2%
EIMI.L
8.9%

Healthcare

INAA.L
8.1%
EIMI.L
3.7%

Consumer Defensive

INAA.L
4.6%
EIMI.L
3.3%

Energy

INAA.L
4.1%
EIMI.L
3.9%

Basic Materials

INAA.L
2.3%
EIMI.L
6.9%

Utilities

INAA.L
2.1%
EIMI.L
2.2%

Real Estate

INAA.L
1.8%
EIMI.L
1.7%

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

iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF

Often compared with INAA.L:
INAA.L vs. VNRT.ASINAA.L vs. EUE.LINAA.L vs. BIBDXINAA.L vs. MXUS.LINAA.L vs. VAPX.LINAA.L vs. VTIINAA.L vs. EFA
Often compared with EIMI.L:
EIMI.L vs. VFEA.DEEIMI.L vs. CSPX.LEIMI.L vs. AVEMEIMI.L vs. SWRD.LEIMI.L vs. VWOEIMI.L vs. VFEG.LEIMI.L vs. AEME.L

Return for Risk

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
INAA.L
INAA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
INAA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INAA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8282
Sortino Ratio Rank
INAA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
INAA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
INAA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
EIMI.L
EIMI.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8080
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
EIMI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
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.

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI North America UCITS (INAA.L) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.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.

INAA.LEIMI.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.69
2.83

-0.14

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.59
3.67

-0.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.50

1.53

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.93

4.78

-0.85

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.18

16.25

-2.07

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

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INAA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is comparable to the EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INAA.L and EIMI.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

INAA.LEIMI.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.69

2.83

-0.14

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.99

0.53

+0.46

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

1.00

0.60

+0.40

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.74

0.47

+0.26

Drawdowns

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INAA.L drawdown since its inception was -35.35%, which is greater than EIMI.L's maximum drawdown of -31.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INAA.L and EIMI.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

INAA.LEIMI.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.35%

-31.70%

-3.65%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.24%

-10.58%

+3.34%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.20%

-15.79%

-5.41%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.20%

-22.27%

+1.07%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-26.15%

-26.10%

-0.05%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.17%

-2.29%

+2.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.71%

-8.72%

+4.01%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.01%

3.12%

-1.11%

Volatility

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI North America UCITS (INAA.L) is 2.63%, while iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) has a volatility of 7.58%. This indicates that INAA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EIMI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

INAA.LEIMI.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.63%

7.58%

-4.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.13%

15.58%

-8.45%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.60%

17.91%

-7.31%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.42%

16.61%

-2.19%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.63%

18.39%

-2.76%

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

INAA.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than EIMI.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

INAA.L vs. EIMI.L - Dividend Comparison

INAA.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, while EIMI.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EIMI.L
iShares Core MSCI EM IMI 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%
INAA.L
iShares MSCI North America UCITS		0.61%0.66%0.76%0.98%1.11%0.74%1.09%1.26%1.40%1.32%1.30%1.51%

Frequently Asked Questions

INAA.L and EIMI.L have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EIMI.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EIMI.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for INAA.L.

INAA.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while EIMI.L is Emerging Markets Equities. INAA.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for INAA.L and 0.18% for EIMI.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for INAA.L and EIMI.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