PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
UB20.L vs. CEA1.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

UB20.L (UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) and CEA1.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - UB20.L tracks the MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD while CEA1.L tracks the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, UB20.L returned 8.09%/yr vs 12.09%/yr for CEA1.L. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UB20.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CEA1.L.

Performance

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UB20.L) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UB20.L achieves a 8.88% return, which is significantly lower than CEA1.L's 30.56% return. Over the past 10 years, UB20.L has underperformed CEA1.L with an annualized return of 8.09%, while CEA1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 12.09% annualized return.

UB20.L

1D
-0.89%
1M
0.41%
YTD
8.88%
6M
9.55%
1Y
17.52%
3Y*
10.59%
5Y*
6.00%
10Y*
8.09%

CEA1.L

1D
-1.69%
1M
8.28%
YTD
30.56%
6M
33.05%
1Y
59.80%
3Y*
23.16%
5Y*
9.12%
10Y*
12.09%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
UB20.L
UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis		8.88%12.00%6.98%-0.60%5.80%5.29%2.35%16.21%-6.21%14.50%
CEA1.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)		30.56%25.23%13.67%0.79%-11.96%-4.22%23.90%13.81%-10.88%29.65%

Correlation

The correlation between UB20.L and CEA1.L is 0.57, 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

0.57

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

0.63

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

0.52

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

0.47

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2013

0.42

The correlation between UB20.L and CEA1.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.42 (all time) to 0.63 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
UB20.L
CEA1.L

Financial Services

46.1%
13.7%

Basic Materials

14.6%
3.4%

Industrials

8.5%
7.2%

Real Estate

7.8%
0.7%

Consumer Cyclical

6.0%
9.9%

Healthcare

3.7%
3.0%

Utilities

3.6%
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

3.0%
2.2%

Energy

2.9%
2.5%

Communication Services

2.7%
6.5%

Technology

1.1%
49.6%

Financial Services

UB20.L
46.1%
CEA1.L
13.7%

Basic Materials

UB20.L
14.6%
CEA1.L
3.4%

Industrials

UB20.L
8.5%
CEA1.L
7.2%

Real Estate

UB20.L
7.8%
CEA1.L
0.7%

Consumer Cyclical

UB20.L
6.0%
CEA1.L
9.9%

Healthcare

UB20.L
3.7%
CEA1.L
3.0%

Utilities

UB20.L
3.6%
CEA1.L
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

UB20.L
3.0%
CEA1.L
2.2%

Energy

UB20.L
2.9%
CEA1.L
2.5%

Communication Services

UB20.L
2.7%
CEA1.L
6.5%

Technology

UB20.L
1.1%
CEA1.L
49.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis

iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)

Often compared with UB20.L:
UB20.L vs. EQQQ.LUB20.L vs. XKS2.LUB20.L vs. UC44.LUB20.L vs. FRIN.LUB20.L vs. ASDV.LUB20.L vs. HMEF.LUB20.L vs. IAPD.L
Often compared with CEA1.L:
CEA1.L vs. ADIVCEA1.L vs. EMV.LCEA1.L vs. XCX5.LCEA1.L vs. EMIM.LCEA1.L vs. IPACCEA1.L vs. IWDA.LCEA1.L vs. SPY

Return for Risk

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
UB20.L
UB20.L Risk / Return Rank: 4848
Overall Rank
UB20.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UB20.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5151
Sortino Ratio Rank
UB20.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4646
Omega Ratio Rank
UB20.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
UB20.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4747
Martin Ratio Rank
CEA1.L
CEA1.L Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEA1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9090
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEA1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
CEA1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEA1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
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.

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UB20.L) and iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.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.

UB20.LCEA1.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.62
3.23

-1.61

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.42
4.12

-1.70

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.58

-0.29

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.46

5.09

-2.64

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.51

17.73

-10.22

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UB20.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.62, which is lower than the CEA1.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UB20.L and CEA1.L, 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

UB20.LCEA1.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.62

3.23

-1.61

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.47

0.51

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

0.65

+0.01

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.68

0.53

+0.15

Drawdowns

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UB20.L drawdown since its inception was -30.04%, smaller than the maximum CEA1.L drawdown of -33.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UB20.L and CEA1.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

UB20.LCEA1.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-30.04%

-33.94%

+3.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.32%

-11.68%

+4.36%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.80%

-17.35%

-0.45%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.80%

-28.87%

+11.07%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-30.04%

-33.94%

+3.90%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.03%

-2.67%

-0.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.59%

-11.09%

+5.50%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.37%

3.36%

-0.99%

Volatility

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UB20.L) is 3.70%, while iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc) (CEA1.L) has a volatility of 8.22%. This indicates that UB20.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CEA1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

UB20.LCEA1.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.70%

8.22%

-4.52%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.48%

15.73%

-7.25%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.12%

18.45%

-7.33%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.34%

17.81%

-2.47%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.15%

18.53%

-0.38%

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

UB20.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than CEA1.L's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

UB20.L vs. CEA1.L - Dividend Comparison

UB20.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.93%, while CEA1.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CEA1.L
iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (Acc)		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
UB20.L
UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Pacific (ex Japan) UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis		2.93%3.86%3.26%3.97%3.64%2.60%3.05%4.03%4.36%3.43%4.00%5.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

UB20.L and CEA1.L have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CEA1.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CEA1.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for UB20.L.

UB20.L tracks MSCI Pacific Ex Japan NR USD, while CEA1.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: UBS and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for UB20.L and 0.20% for CEA1.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UB20.L and CEA1.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