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

Performance

QAT vs. IEMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) 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, QAT achieves a -0.42% return, which is significantly lower than IEMG's 26.21% return. Over the past 10 years, QAT has underperformed IEMG with an annualized return of 4.31%, while IEMG has yielded a comparatively higher 10.41% annualized return.


QAT

1D
-0.37%
1M
-0.79%
YTD
-0.42%
6M
0.19%
1Y
1.83%
3Y*
3.96%
5Y*
3.38%
10Y*
4.31%

IEMG

1D
-1.34%
1M
7.97%
YTD
26.21%
6M
28.63%
1Y
52.58%
3Y*
23.55%
5Y*
7.58%
10Y*
10.41%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QAT vs. IEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QAT
iShares MSCI Qatar ETF
-0.42%8.81%5.20%2.72%-7.23%14.42%6.94%-0.44%20.03%-11.66%
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
26.21%32.56%6.50%11.52%-19.98%-0.64%17.87%17.81%-14.92%37.38%

Correlation

The correlation between QAT and IEMG 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

0.35

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

0.36

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

0.34

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2014

0.34

QAT vs. IEMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QAT
IEMG

Financial Services

54.3%
18.4%

Industrials

13.2%
9.0%

Basic Materials

12.7%
6.9%

Communication Services

6.7%
6.4%

Real Estate

3.9%
1.7%

Energy

3.3%
3.8%

Utilities

2.6%
2.2%

Healthcare

0.8%
3.7%

Consumer Cyclical

0.7%
9.5%

Consumer Defensive

0.7%
3.3%

Technology

0.5%
35.0%

Financial Services

QAT
54.3%
IEMG
18.4%

Industrials

QAT
13.2%
IEMG
9.0%

Basic Materials

QAT
12.7%
IEMG
6.9%

Communication Services

QAT
6.7%
IEMG
6.4%

Real Estate

QAT
3.9%
IEMG
1.7%

Energy

QAT
3.3%
IEMG
3.8%

Utilities

QAT
2.6%
IEMG
2.2%

Healthcare

QAT
0.8%
IEMG
3.7%

Consumer Cyclical

QAT
0.7%
IEMG
9.5%

Consumer Defensive

QAT
0.7%
IEMG
3.3%

Technology

QAT
0.5%
IEMG
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.


Return for Risk

QAT vs. IEMG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QAT
QAT Risk / Return Rank: 1010
Overall Rank
QAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1010
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 1010
Sortino Ratio Rank
QAT Omega Ratio Rank: 1010
Omega Ratio Rank
QAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 1111
Calmar Ratio Rank
QAT Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
Martin Ratio Rank

IEMG
IEMG Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
IEMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMG Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMG Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

QAT vs. IEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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


QATIEMGDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.14

2.72

-2.58

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.28

3.53

-3.24

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.50

-0.46

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.17

4.00

-3.83

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

0.33

15.38

-15.05

QAT vs. IEMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QAT Sharpe Ratio is 0.14, which is lower than the IEMG Sharpe Ratio of 2.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QAT 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


QATIEMGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.14

2.72

-2.58

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.23

0.41

-0.19

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.25

0.52

-0.28

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.07

0.35

-0.28

Drawdowns

QAT vs. IEMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QAT drawdown since its inception was -45.21%, which is greater than IEMG's maximum drawdown of -38.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QAT and IEMG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QATIEMGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.21%

-38.71%

-6.50%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.60%

-13.21%

+2.61%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.41%

-17.21%

-0.20%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.17%

-35.83%

+2.66%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.04%

-38.71%

+4.67%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-12.80%

-1.34%

-11.46%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-19.18%

-12.97%

-6.21%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.54%

3.43%

+2.11%

Volatility

QAT vs. IEMG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) is 5.03%, while iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) has a volatility of 8.31%. This indicates that QAT 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


QATIEMGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.03%

8.31%

-3.28%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.46%

16.93%

-6.47%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.36%

19.43%

-6.07%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.00%

18.38%

-3.38%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.56%

20.03%

-2.47%

QAT vs. IEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QAT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than IEMG's 0.09% expense ratio.


Dividends

QAT vs. IEMG - Dividend Comparison

QAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.52%, more than IEMG's 2.18% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
2.18%2.75%3.20%2.89%2.71%3.06%1.87%3.15%2.76%2.35%2.28%2.53%
QAT
iShares MSCI Qatar ETF
3.52%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 IEMG 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.

IEMG has higher volatility (8.31%) compared to QAT (5.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QAT dropped -45.21% vs IEMG's -38.71%.

On 10-year performance, IEMG leads with 10.41% vs 4.31% for QAT. On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 5.03%. 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 10.41% return vs 4.31%. 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 0.59% for QAT.

QAT has the higher dividend yield at 3.52%, compared with 2.18% for IEMG.

QAT is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while IEMG is Emerging Markets Diversified. QAT tracks MSCI All Qatar Capped Index, while IEMG tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for QAT and 0.09% for IEMG.

IEMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 vs 0.14), 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 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