PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MNA vs. IEMG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MNA vs. IEMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MNA achieves a 1.79% return, which is significantly lower than IEMG's 18.97% return. Over the past 10 years, MNA has underperformed IEMG with an annualized return of 2.74%, while IEMG has yielded a comparatively higher 9.88% annualized return.


MNA

1D
-0.08%
1M
-0.14%
YTD
1.79%
6M
1.97%
1Y
4.47%
3Y*
5.95%
5Y*
1.83%
10Y*
2.74%

IEMG

1D
1.70%
1M
-3.66%
YTD
18.97%
6M
20.80%
1Y
40.80%
3Y*
20.51%
5Y*
6.57%
10Y*
9.88%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MNA vs. IEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MNA
IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF
1.79%8.59%4.93%0.18%-1.61%-3.24%2.72%4.70%2.13%5.97%
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
18.97%32.56%6.50%11.52%-19.98%-0.64%17.87%17.81%-14.92%37.38%

Correlation

The correlation between MNA and IEMG is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.32

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

0.36

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

0.40

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

0.34

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2012

0.33

MNA vs. IEMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
MNA
IEMG

Industrials

22.3%
9.0%

Utilities

15.3%
2.2%

Financial Services

11.4%
18.4%

Healthcare

11.3%
3.7%

Basic Materials

10.3%
6.9%

Communication Services

9.2%
6.4%

Technology

8.3%
35.0%

Real Estate

5.1%
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

4.4%
3.3%

Consumer Cyclical

2.4%
9.5%

Energy

-

3.8%

Industrials

MNA
22.3%
IEMG
9.0%

Utilities

MNA
15.3%
IEMG
2.2%

Financial Services

MNA
11.4%
IEMG
18.4%

Healthcare

MNA
11.3%
IEMG
3.7%

Basic Materials

MNA
10.3%
IEMG
6.9%

Communication Services

MNA
9.2%
IEMG
6.4%

Technology

MNA
8.3%
IEMG
35.0%

Real Estate

MNA
5.1%
IEMG
1.7%

Consumer Defensive

MNA
4.4%
IEMG
3.3%

Consumer Cyclical

MNA
2.4%
IEMG
9.5%

Energy

MNA

-

IEMG
3.8%

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

MNA vs. IEMG — Risk / Return Rank

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

MNA
MNA Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
MNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
MNA Omega Ratio Rank: 2828
Omega Ratio Rank
MNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
MNA Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
Martin Ratio Rank

IEMG
IEMG Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
IEMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMG Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMG Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
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.

MNA vs. IEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). 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.


MNAIEMGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.05

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.38

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.22

3.10

+0.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.99

11.68

-3.69

MNA vs. IEMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MNA Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is lower than the IEMG Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MNA and IEMG, 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


MNAIEMGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.95

1.99

-1.05

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.37

0.35

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.42

0.49

-0.07

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.36

0.33

+0.03

Drawdowns

MNA vs. IEMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MNA drawdown since its inception was -16.68%, smaller than the maximum IEMG drawdown of -38.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNA and IEMG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MNAIEMGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-16.68%

-38.71%

+22.03%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.40%

-13.21%

+11.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-3.01%

-17.21%

+14.20%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-10.45%

-35.75%

+25.30%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-16.68%

-38.71%

+22.03%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.55%

-7.00%

+6.45%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.83%

-12.97%

+10.14%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.56%

3.50%

-2.94%

Volatility

MNA vs. IEMG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) is 1.66%, while iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) has a volatility of 10.33%. This indicates that MNA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IEMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MNAIEMGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.66%

10.33%

-8.67%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.59%

18.35%

-14.76%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.75%

20.62%

-15.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

4.98%

18.62%

-13.64%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.55%

20.14%

-13.59%

MNA vs. IEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

MNA has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than IEMG's 0.09% expense ratio.


Dividends

MNA vs. IEMG - Dividend Comparison

MNA has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IEMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.31%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
2.31%2.75%3.20%2.89%2.71%3.06%1.87%3.15%2.76%2.35%2.28%2.53%
MNA
IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF
0.00%0.00%0.00%1.20%0.00%0.00%2.30%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.21%0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions


MNA and IEMG have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IEMG has higher volatility (10.33%) compared to MNA (1.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MNA dropped -16.68% vs IEMG's -38.71%.

On 10-year performance, IEMG leads with 9.88% vs 2.74% for MNA. On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, MNA has been the lower-risk option at 1.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, IEMG has performed better with a 9.88% return vs 2.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IEMG is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for MNA.

IEMG has the higher dividend yield at 2.31%, compared with 0.00% for MNA.

MNA is categorized as Hedge Fund, while IEMG is Emerging Markets Diversified. MNA tracks IQ Merger Arbitrage Index, while IEMG tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (USD) (Net). They also come from different issuers: New York Life and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for MNA and 0.09% for IEMG.

IEMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 0.95), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MNA and IEMG

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