IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L
IUMS.L (iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and EIMI.L (iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IUMS.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Materials Index NTR, while EIMI.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IUMS.L returned 4.91%/yr vs 7.61%/yr for EIMI.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IUMS.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EIMI.L.
Performance
IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IUMS.L achieves a 12.52% return, which is significantly lower than EIMI.L's 24.25% return.
IUMS.L
- 1D
- -0.13%
- 1M
- 0.75%
- YTD
- 12.52%
- 6M
- 16.74%
- 1Y
- 18.25%
- 3Y*
- 11.05%
- 5Y*
- 4.91%
- 10Y*
- —
EIMI.L
- 1D
- -1.30%
- 1M
- 4.51%
- YTD
- 24.25%
- 6M
- 27.21%
- 1Y
- 49.41%
- 3Y*
- 23.30%
- 5Y*
- 7.61%
- 10Y*
- 10.26%
IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IUMS.L iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 12.52% | 10.90% | -0.92% | 12.41% | -11.90% | 26.93% | 20.54% | 22.92% | -15.68% | 19.22% |
EIMI.L iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF | 24.25% | 32.16% | 7.36% | 11.03% | -19.67% | -0.65% | 18.80% | 16.37% | -14.17% | 21.61% |
Correlation
The correlation between IUMS.L and EIMI.L is 0.54, 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 | 0.54 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.56 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.59 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 23, 2017 | 0.60 |
The correlation between IUMS.L and EIMI.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.
IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
IUMS.L
EIMI.L
Basic Materials
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Healthcare
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
IUMS.L
EIMI.L
Consumer Cyclical
IUMS.L
EIMI.L
Industrials
IUMS.L
EIMI.L
Communication Services
IUMS.L
-
EIMI.L
Consumer Defensive
IUMS.L
-
EIMI.L
Energy
IUMS.L
-
EIMI.L
Financial Services
IUMS.L
-
EIMI.L
Healthcare
IUMS.L
-
EIMI.L
Real Estate
IUMS.L
-
EIMI.L
Technology
IUMS.L
-
EIMI.L
Utilities
IUMS.L
-
EIMI.L
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
IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L — Risk / Return Rank
IUMS.L
EIMI.L
IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUMS.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.
| IUMS.L | EIMI.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.46 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.80 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.47 | -0.27 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.58 | 3.88 | -2.31 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.71 | 14.02 | -9.31 |
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
| IUMS.L | EIMI.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.10 | 2.56 | -1.46 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.26 | 0.42 | -0.16 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.54 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.48 | 0.36 | +0.12 |
Drawdowns
IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IUMS.L drawdown since its inception was -35.81%, smaller than the maximum EIMI.L drawdown of -38.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IUMS.L and EIMI.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IUMS.L | EIMI.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -35.81% | -38.73% | +2.92% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.51% | -12.66% | +1.15% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.80% | -17.44% | -5.36% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.24% | -35.50% | +10.26% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -38.73% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.42% | -2.64% | -0.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.06% | -14.04% | +6.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.87% | 3.52% | +0.35% |
Volatility
IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares S&P 500 Materials Sector UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (IUMS.L) is 6.12%, while iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) has a volatility of 8.18%. This indicates that IUMS.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
| IUMS.L | EIMI.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.12% | 8.18% | -2.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.40% | 16.71% | -3.31% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.52% | 19.23% | -2.71% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.90% | 18.31% | +0.59% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.07% | 19.15% | +0.92% |
IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IUMS.L has a 0.15% 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
IUMS.L vs. EIMI.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither IUMS.L nor EIMI.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
IUMS.L and EIMI.L have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IUMS.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IUMS.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for EIMI.L.
IUMS.L is categorized as S&P 500, while EIMI.L is Emerging Markets Equities. IUMS.L tracks S&P 500 Capped 35/20 Materials Index NTR, while EIMI.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IUMS.L and 0.18% for EIMI.L.
Find the right allocation for IUMS.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