PHYS vs. EEMA
PHYS (Sprott Physical Gold Trust) is a stock, while EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) is Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Over the past 10 years, PHYS returned 11.42%/yr vs 10.78%/yr for EEMA. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
PHYS vs. EEMA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PHYS achieves a -3.85% return, which is significantly lower than EEMA's 23.70% return. Over the past 10 years, PHYS has outperformed EEMA with an annualized return of 11.42%, while EEMA has yielded a comparatively lower 10.78% annualized return.
PHYS
- 1D
- 0.19%
- 1M
- -10.61%
- YTD
- -3.85%
- 6M
- -3.47%
- 1Y
- 22.63%
- 3Y*
- 28.00%
- 5Y*
- 16.26%
- 10Y*
- 11.42%
EEMA
- 1D
- 0.47%
- 1M
- 0.51%
- YTD
- 23.70%
- 6M
- 27.45%
- 1Y
- 44.66%
- 3Y*
- 22.04%
- 5Y*
- 6.58%
- 10Y*
- 10.78%
PHYS vs. EEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PHYS Sprott Physical Gold Trust | -3.85% | 63.95% | 26.43% | 12.98% | -1.81% | -4.84% | 23.89% | 18.14% | -2.64% | 12.78% |
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF | 23.70% | 33.27% | 10.23% | 6.57% | -21.49% | -4.22% | 25.17% | 18.60% | -15.76% | 43.41% |
Correlation
The correlation between PHYS and EEMA is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2012 | 0.15 |
The correlation between PHYS and EEMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (all time) to 0.33 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
PHYS vs. EEMA — Risk / Return Rank
PHYS
EEMA
PHYS vs. EEMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| PHYS | EEMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.58 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.39 | -0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.92 | 3.14 | -2.22 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.64 | 11.43 | -8.79 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PHYS vs. EEMA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PHYS drawdown since its inception was -48.16%, which is greater than EEMA's maximum drawdown of -44.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PHYS and EEMA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PHYS | EEMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.16% | -44.18% | -3.98% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -24.80% | -14.30% | -10.50% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.80% | -20.23% | -4.57% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.80% | -40.46% | +15.66% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -24.80% | -44.18% | +19.38% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.43% | -4.33% | -18.10% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -20.99% | -13.95% | -7.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.60% | 3.92% | +4.68% |
Volatility
PHYS vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Sprott Physical Gold Trust (PHYS) is 7.80%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a volatility of 10.16%. This indicates that PHYS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PHYS | EEMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.80% | 10.16% | -2.36% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.75% | 18.97% | +5.78% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.17% | 21.67% | +6.50% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.53% | 20.66% | -2.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.41% | 20.97% | -4.56% |
Dividends
PHYS vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison
PHYS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.19%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF | 1.19% | 1.48% | 1.74% | 2.02% | 1.78% | 2.19% | 1.15% | 1.86% | 2.17% | 1.74% | 1.74% | 2.44% |
PHYS Sprott Physical Gold Trust | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PHYS and EEMA have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EEMA has higher volatility (10.16%) compared to PHYS (7.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PHYS dropped -48.16% vs EEMA's -44.18%.
EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 0.81), 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.
Find the right allocation for PHYS and EEMA
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