IPAC vs. CEA1.L

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L).

IPAC and CEA1.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. IPAC is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index. It was launched on Jun 10, 2014. CEA1.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. It was launched on Aug 6, 2010. Both IPAC and CEA1.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.

Performance

IPAC vs. CEA1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

IPAC vs. CEA1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	4.51%	25.16%	6.18%	14.51%	-13.68%	3.09%	12.39%	19.44%	-12.78%	25.97%
CEA1.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)	-0.42%	34.67%	11.78%	6.11%	-21.37%	-5.09%	27.70%	18.37%	-15.92%	42.00%

Different Trading Currencies

IPAC is traded in USD, while CEA1.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the CEA1.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IPAC achieves a 4.51% return, which is significantly higher than CEA1.L's -0.42% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with IPAC having a 8.70% annualized return and CEA1.L not far behind at 8.41%.

IPAC

• 1D: 3.03%
• 1M: -8.21%
• YTD: 4.51%
• 6M: 7.48%
• 1Y: 28.41%
• 3Y*: 14.70%
• 5Y*: 6.30%
• 10Y*: 8.70%

CEA1.L

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: -12.86%
• YTD: -0.42%
• 6M: 4.01%
• 1Y: 30.24%
• 3Y*: 15.00%
• 5Y*: 2.66%
• 10Y*: 8.41%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IPAC vs. CEA1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

IPAC has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than CEA1.L's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

CEA1.L

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)

IPAC

iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF

Return for Risk

IPAC vs. CEA1.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IPAC

IPAC Risk / Return Rank: 82
IPAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
IPAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
IPAC Omega Ratio Rank: 80
IPAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
IPAC Martin Ratio Rank: 83

CEA1.L

CEA1.L Risk / Return Rank: 77
CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
CEA1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
CEA1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 77
CEA1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
CEA1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

IPAC vs. CEA1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.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.

	IPAC	CEA1.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.47	1.53	-0.06
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.07	2.01	+0.06
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.29	+0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.39	2.09	+0.30
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.08	7.53	+1.54
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IPAC vs. CEA1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IPAC Sharpe Ratio is 1.47, which is comparable to the CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IPAC and CEA1.L, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IPAC	CEA1.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.47	1.53	-0.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.38	0.14	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	0.43	+0.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	0.33	+0.07

Correlation

The correlation between IPAC and CEA1.L is 0.59, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

IPAC vs. CEA1.L - Dividend Comparison

IPAC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.14%, while CEA1.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	4.14%	4.32%	3.43%	3.16%	2.76%	4.03%	1.68%	3.37%	2.95%	2.98%	2.66%	2.60%
CEA1.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (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%

Drawdowns

IPAC vs. CEA1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IPAC drawdown since its inception was -30.99%, smaller than the maximum CEA1.L drawdown of -45.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IPAC and CEA1.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	IPAC	CEA1.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.99%	-33.94%	+2.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.49%	-11.83%	+0.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.64%	-28.87%	-0.77%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.99%	-33.94%	+2.95%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.62%	-11.68%	+3.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.55%	-11.21%	+3.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.02%	3.67%	-0.65%

Volatility

IPAC vs. CEA1.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) is 8.46%, while iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) has a volatility of 8.93%. This indicates that IPAC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEA1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IPAC	CEA1.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.46%	8.93%	-0.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.68%	13.88%	-1.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.43%	19.69%	-0.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.50%	19.52%	-3.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.58%	19.53%	-2.95%