XEC.TO vs. EIMI.L
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF (XEC.TO) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L).
XEC.TO and EIMI.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. XEC.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the Morningstar EM GR CAD. It was launched on Apr 10, 2013. EIMI.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index. It was launched on May 30, 2014. Both XEC.TO and EIMI.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: XEC.TO or EIMI.L.
Key characteristics
| XEC.TO | EIMI.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 11.66% | 9.31% |
| 1Y Return | 14.70% | 15.21% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -0.35% | -1.50% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 4.59% | 4.79% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 4.77% | 2.96% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.23 | 1.08 |
| Daily Std Dev | 11.94% | 14.75% |
| Max Drawdown | -32.54% | -38.73% |
| Current Drawdown | -9.50% | -13.55% |
Correlation
The correlation between XEC.TO and EIMI.L is 0.72, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
XEC.TO vs. EIMI.L - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, XEC.TO achieves a 11.66% return, which is significantly higher than EIMI.L's 9.31% return. Over the past 10 years, XEC.TO has outperformed EIMI.L with an annualized return of 4.77%, while EIMI.L has yielded a comparatively lower 2.96% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
XEC.TO vs. EIMI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
XEC.TO has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than EIMI.L's 0.18% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
XEC.TO vs. EIMI.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF (XEC.TO) and iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.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.
Dividends
XEC.TO vs. EIMI.L - Dividend Comparison
XEC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.27%, while EIMI.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XEC.TO iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF | 2.27% | 2.16% | 2.28% | 2.78% | 1.64% | 2.87% | 2.66% | 2.13% | 1.80% | 2.19% | 1.92% | 1.27% |
EIMI.L iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Drawdowns
XEC.TO vs. EIMI.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XEC.TO drawdown since its inception was -32.54%, smaller than the maximum EIMI.L drawdown of -38.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XEC.TO and EIMI.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
XEC.TO vs. EIMI.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI Index ETF (XEC.TO) has a higher volatility of 4.00% compared to iShares Core MSCI EM IMI UCITS ETF (EIMI.L) at 3.49%. This indicates that XEC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EIMI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.