IS3N.DE vs. CEBL.DE
IS3N.DE (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc)) and CEBL.DE (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - IS3N.DE is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market (IMI), while CEBL.DE is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IS3N.DE returned 10.00%/yr vs 11.02%/yr for CEBL.DE. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. IS3N.DE charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CEBL.DE.
Performance
IS3N.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IS3N.DE achieves a 25.82% return, which is significantly lower than CEBL.DE's 31.90% return. Over the past 10 years, IS3N.DE has underperformed CEBL.DE with an annualized return of 10.00%, while CEBL.DE has yielded a comparatively higher 11.02% annualized return.
IS3N.DE
- 1D
- -1.45%
- 1M
- 3.11%
- YTD
- 25.82%
- 6M
- 26.34%
- 1Y
- 45.77%
- 3Y*
- 19.99%
- 5Y*
- 8.61%
- 10Y*
- 10.00%
CEBL.DE
- 1D
- -1.89%
- 1M
- 5.19%
- YTD
- 31.90%
- 6M
- 32.33%
- 1Y
- 54.45%
- 3Y*
- 22.99%
- 5Y*
- 8.97%
- 10Y*
- 11.02%
IS3N.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IS3N.DE iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) | 25.82% | 17.14% | 13.87% | 7.20% | -14.09% | 7.38% | 7.07% | 21.01% | -11.06% | 20.43% |
CEBL.DE iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) | 31.90% | 19.13% | 18.60% | 3.15% | -15.54% | 2.03% | 15.18% | 22.17% | -12.65% | 25.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between IS3N.DE and CEBL.DE is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.96 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2014 | 0.96 |
The correlation between IS3N.DE and CEBL.DE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
IS3N.DE vs. CEBL.DE — Risk / Return Rank
IS3N.DE
CEBL.DE
IS3N.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (IS3N.DE) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE). 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.
| IS3N.DE | CEBL.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.12 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.16 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | 1.50 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.42 | 4.83 | -0.41 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.00 | 17.67 | -1.66 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IS3N.DE | CEBL.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.69 | 2.81 | -0.12 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.53 | 0.48 | +0.05 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.55 | 0.58 | -0.03 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.44 | 0.43 | +0.01 |
Drawdowns
IS3N.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IS3N.DE drawdown since its inception was -35.06%, roughly equal to the maximum CEBL.DE drawdown of -35.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IS3N.DE and CEBL.DE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IS3N.DE | CEBL.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.06% | -35.09% | +0.03% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.52% | -11.43% | +0.91% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.17% | -20.53% | +1.36% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.01% | -29.00% | +6.99% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -32.51% | -33.12% | +0.61% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.49% | -2.85% | +0.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.30% | -11.09% | +1.79% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.91% | 3.13% | -0.22% |
Volatility
IS3N.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (IS3N.DE) is 7.16%, while iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEBL.DE) has a volatility of 8.24%. This indicates that IS3N.DE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEBL.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IS3N.DE | CEBL.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.16% | 8.24% | -1.08% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.69% | 16.36% | -1.67% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.32% | 19.68% | -2.36% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.19% | 18.48% | -2.29% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.04% | 18.94% | -0.90% |
IS3N.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
IS3N.DE has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than CEBL.DE'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%.
Dividends
IS3N.DE vs. CEBL.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither IS3N.DE nor CEBL.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.96, IS3N.DE and CEBL.DE move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, IS3N.DE is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IS3N.DE is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CEBL.DE.
IS3N.DE is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while CEBL.DE is Asia Pacific Equities. IS3N.DE tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market (IMI), while CEBL.DE tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for IS3N.DE and 0.20% for CEBL.DE.
Find the right allocation for IS3N.DE and CEBL.DE
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