PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

ISF.L vs. EIMI.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ISF.L (iShares Core FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (Dist)) and EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ISF.L is a Europe Equities fund tracking the FTSE AllSh TR GBP, 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, ISF.L returned 9.12%/yr vs 11.09%/yr for EIMI.L. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ISF.L charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EIMI.L.

Performance

ISF.L vs. EIMI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Core FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (Dist) (ISF.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

ISF.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, ISF.L achieves a 6.13% return, which is significantly lower than EIMI.L's 24.75% return. Over the past 10 years, ISF.L has underperformed EIMI.L with an annualized return of 9.12%, while EIMI.L has yielded a comparatively higher 11.09% annualized return.

ISF.L

1D
0.26%
1M
1.75%
YTD
6.13%
6M
8.49%
1Y
21.32%
3Y*
14.88%
5Y*
11.88%
10Y*
9.12%

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)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ISF.L
iShares Core FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (Dist)		6.13%25.97%9.28%7.81%4.83%17.68%-11.67%17.11%-8.96%13.10%
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 ISF.L and EIMI.L is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.38

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

0.49

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

0.50

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

0.58

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

0.61

Over the past year, the correlation between ISF.L and EIMI.L has dropped to 0.38 - well below their long-term average of 0.61, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

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

Sectors
ISF.L
EIMI.L

Financial Services

24.8%
18.4%

Industrials

13.8%
8.9%

Healthcare

13.8%
3.7%

Consumer Defensive

12.8%
3.3%

Energy

11.9%
3.9%

Basic Materials

8.6%
6.9%

Utilities

5.3%
2.2%

Consumer Cyclical

4.7%
9.6%

Communication Services

2.6%
6.4%

Real Estate

0.9%
1.7%

Technology

0.8%
35.0%

Financial Services

ISF.L
24.8%
EIMI.L
18.4%

Industrials

ISF.L
13.8%
EIMI.L
8.9%

Healthcare

ISF.L
13.8%
EIMI.L
3.7%

Consumer Defensive

ISF.L
12.8%
EIMI.L
3.3%

Energy

ISF.L
11.9%
EIMI.L
3.9%

Basic Materials

ISF.L
8.6%
EIMI.L
6.9%

Utilities

ISF.L
5.3%
EIMI.L
2.2%

Consumer Cyclical

ISF.L
4.7%
EIMI.L
9.6%

Communication Services

ISF.L
2.6%
EIMI.L
6.4%

Real Estate

ISF.L
0.9%
EIMI.L
1.7%

Technology

ISF.L
0.8%
EIMI.L
35.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares Core FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (Dist)

iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF

Often compared with ISF.L:
ISF.L vs. VUKE.LISF.L vs. HUKX.LISF.L vs. UKDV.LISF.L vs. XDAX.LISF.L vs. VUSA.ASISF.L vs. VOOISF.L vs. FEUI.L
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

ISF.L vs. EIMI.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ISF.L
ISF.L Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
ISF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ISF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
ISF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
ISF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
ISF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4949
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (Dist) (ISF.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.

ISF.LEIMI.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.98
2.83

-0.85

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.78
3.67

-0.89

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.53

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.41

4.78

-2.38

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.18

16.25

-8.07

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

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

The current ISF.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is lower than the EIMI.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISF.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

ISF.LEIMI.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.98

2.83

-0.85

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.95

0.53

+0.42

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.61

0.60

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.16

0.47

-0.31

Drawdowns

ISF.L vs. EIMI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISF.L drawdown since its inception was -68.24%, 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 ISF.L and EIMI.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ISF.LEIMI.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-68.24%

-31.70%

-36.54%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.82%

-10.58%

+1.76%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.69%

-15.79%

+3.10%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-12.69%

-22.27%

+9.58%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.13%

-26.10%

-8.03%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.90%

-2.29%

-1.61%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-21.87%

-8.72%

-13.15%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.60%

3.12%

-0.52%

Volatility

ISF.L vs. EIMI.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (Dist) (ISF.L) is 3.85%, while iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) has a volatility of 7.58%. This indicates that ISF.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

ISF.LEIMI.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.85%

7.58%

-3.73%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.31%

15.58%

-6.27%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.73%

17.91%

-7.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.56%

16.61%

-4.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.84%

18.39%

-3.55%

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

ISF.L has a 0.07% expense ratio, which is lower than EIMI.L's 0.18% 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

ISF.L vs. EIMI.L - Dividend Comparison

ISF.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.86%, 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%
ISF.L
iShares Core FTSE 100 UCITS ETF (Dist)		2.86%3.01%3.71%3.86%3.75%3.76%3.11%4.47%4.44%3.96%3.79%4.12%

Frequently Asked Questions

ISF.L and EIMI.L have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

ISF.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for EIMI.L.

ISF.L is categorized as Europe Equities, while EIMI.L is Emerging Markets Equities. ISF.L tracks FTSE AllSh TR GBP, while EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for ISF.L and 0.18% for EIMI.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ISF.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