PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
QAT vs. EDEN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

QAT vs. EDEN

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

QAT (iShares MSCI Qatar ETF) and EDEN (iShares MSCI Denmark ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QAT is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI All Qatar Capped Index, while EDEN is a Europe Equities fund tracking the MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, QAT returned 2.88%/yr vs 9.03%/yr for EDEN. Their 0.22 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. QAT charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for EDEN.

Performance

QAT vs. EDEN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) and iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QAT achieves a -4.44% return, which is significantly lower than EDEN's 0.71% return. Over the past 10 years, QAT has underperformed EDEN with an annualized return of 2.88%, while EDEN has yielded a comparatively higher 9.03% annualized return.

QAT

1D
-0.46%
1M
-3.26%
6M
-8.76%
YTD
-4.44%
1Y
-7.45%
3Y*
1.12%
5Y*
2.65%
10Y*
2.88%
ALL TIME*
0.92%

EDEN

1D
-2.33%
1M
-1.18%
6M
-5.46%
YTD
0.71%
1Y
11.69%
3Y*
4.23%
5Y*
2.08%
10Y*
9.03%
ALL TIME*
12.20%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

EDEN

iShares MSCI Denmark ETF
$542.51K$1.19M$1.06M

QAT

iShares MSCI Qatar ETF
$941.21K$596.55K$1.10M

QAT vs. EDEN - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QAT
iShares MSCI Qatar ETF		-4.44%8.81%5.20%2.72%-7.23%14.42%6.94%-0.44%20.03%-11.66%
EDEN
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF		0.71%10.58%-3.94%17.99%-11.47%14.81%42.56%24.37%-14.43%35.39%

Correlation

The correlation between QAT and EDEN is 0.31, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.31

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.28

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.23

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.21

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 2014

0.22

QAT vs. EDEN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
QAT
EDEN

Financial Services

55.7%
15.5%

Basic Materials

11.9%
4.8%

Industrials

8.6%
29.0%

Energy

7.7%
0.9%

Communication Services

6.4%

-

Real Estate

3.9%

-

Utilities

2.5%
3.2%

Technology

1.0%
0.9%

Healthcare

0.8%
38.3%

Consumer Cyclical

0.8%
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

0.7%
4.7%

Financial Services

QAT
55.7%
EDEN
15.5%

Basic Materials

QAT
11.9%
EDEN
4.8%

Industrials

QAT
8.6%
EDEN
29.0%

Energy

QAT
7.7%
EDEN
0.9%

Communication Services

QAT
6.4%
EDEN

-

Real Estate

QAT
3.9%
EDEN

-

Utilities

QAT
2.5%
EDEN
3.2%

Technology

QAT
1.0%
EDEN
0.9%

Healthcare

QAT
0.8%
EDEN
38.3%

Consumer Cyclical

QAT
0.8%
EDEN
2.8%

Consumer Defensive

QAT
0.7%
EDEN
4.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI Qatar ETF

iShares MSCI Denmark ETF

Often compared with QAT:
QAT vs. UAEQAT vs. KSAQAT vs. ENORQAT vs. SJMQAT vs. EIRLQAT vs. VOOQAT vs. VHT
Often compared with EDEN:
EDEN vs. EWNEDEN vs. ARGTEDEN vs. FNORXEDEN vs. EWIEDEN vs. ENZLEDEN vs. ENOREDEN vs. EWQ

Return for Risk

QAT vs. EDEN — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
QAT
QAT Risk / Return Rank: 44
Overall Rank
QAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
Sortino Ratio Rank
QAT Omega Ratio Rank: 44
Omega Ratio Rank
QAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
Calmar Ratio Rank
QAT Martin Ratio Rank: 44
Martin Ratio Rank
EDEN
EDEN Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
EDEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2727
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EDEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 2727
Sortino Ratio Rank
EDEN Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
EDEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 2222
Calmar Ratio Rank
EDEN Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QAT vs. EDEN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) and iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN). 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.

QATEDENDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
-0.56
0.63

-1.19

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
-0.73
1.02

-1.75

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.91

1.13

-0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.65

0.59

-1.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-1.14

1.37

-2.51

QAT vs. EDEN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QAT Sharpe Ratio is -0.56, which is lower than the EDEN Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QAT and EDEN, 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...

Drawdowns

QAT vs. EDEN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QAT drawdown since its inception was -45.21%, which is greater than EDEN's maximum drawdown of -36.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QAT and EDEN.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

QATEDENDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.21%

-36.61%

-8.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.48%

-21.17%

+9.69%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.47%

-29.31%

+13.84%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.17%

-36.61%

+3.44%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.04%

-36.61%

+2.57%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-16.32%

-10.20%

-6.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-19.10%

-7.41%

-11.69%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.53%

9.04%

-2.51%

Volatility

QAT vs. EDEN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) is 3.27%, while iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) has a volatility of 5.77%. This indicates that QAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EDEN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

QATEDENDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.27%

5.77%

-2.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.99%

15.53%

-4.54%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.33%

19.78%

-6.45%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.08%

20.37%

-5.29%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.49%

19.20%

-1.71%

QAT vs. EDEN - Expense Ratio Comparison

QAT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than EDEN's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

QAT vs. EDEN - Dividend Comparison

QAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.89%, more than EDEN's 3.04% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EDEN
iShares MSCI Denmark ETF		3.04%2.79%1.50%1.92%1.47%0.74%0.42%2.36%2.01%2.03%1.28%1.46%
QAT
iShares MSCI Qatar ETF		4.89%3.51%5.90%3.92%4.78%2.33%2.63%3.57%4.63%4.10%3.51%4.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

QAT and EDEN have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EDEN has higher volatility (5.77%) compared to QAT (3.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QAT dropped -45.21% vs EDEN's -36.61%.

On 10-year performance, EDEN leads with 9.03% vs 2.88% for QAT. On fees, EDEN is cheaper at 0.53% per year. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 3.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EDEN has performed better with a 9.03% return vs 2.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EDEN is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for QAT.

QAT has the higher dividend yield at 4.89%, compared with 3.04% for EDEN.

QAT is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while EDEN is Europe Equities. QAT tracks MSCI All Qatar Capped Index, while EDEN tracks MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for QAT and 0.53% for EDEN.

EDEN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.63 vs -0.56), 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 QAT and EDEN

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