PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (XEMC.TO) and iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO).

XEMC.TO and CWO.NEO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. XEMC.TO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index (Net). It was launched on Feb 7, 2023. CWO.NEO is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the FTSE RAFI Emerging Markets Index. It was launched on Apr 7, 2009. Both XEMC.TO and CWO.NEO are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (XEMC.TO) and iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023
XEMC.TO
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF		9.76%28.28%10.87%12.07%
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF		5.44%26.34%22.33%6.50%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XEMC.TO achieves a 9.76% return, which is significantly higher than CWO.NEO's 5.44% return.

XEMC.TO

1D
4.21%
1M
-8.58%
YTD
9.76%
6M
18.13%
1Y
41.69%
3Y*
20.37%
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

CWO.NEO

1D
3.11%
1M
-4.24%
YTD
5.44%
6M
8.11%
1Y
24.20%
3Y*
20.08%
5Y*
10.54%
10Y*
10.34%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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 Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF

iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF

Often compared with XEMC.TO:
XEMC.TO vs. XEC.TOXEMC.TO vs. ZEM.TOXEMC.TO vs. XSEM.TOXEMC.TO vs. VEE.TOXEMC.TO vs. XDIV.TOXEMC.TO vs. TCIEXXEMC.TO vs. VVL.TO
Often compared with CWO.NEO:
CWO.NEO vs. VEE.TOCWO.NEO vs. XEC.TOCWO.NEO vs. EMGFCWO.NEO vs. ZEM.TOCWO.NEO vs. VGRO.TOCWO.NEO vs. VCN.TOCWO.NEO vs. BRF

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XEMC.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CWO.NEO's 0.73% expense ratio.

CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF
XEMC.TO
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF

Return for Risk

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
XEMC.TO
XEMC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
XEMC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XEMC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9393
Sortino Ratio Rank
XEMC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
XEMC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
XEMC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO
CWO.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7373
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 7474
Omega Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 6969
Calmar Ratio Rank
CWO.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
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.

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (XEMC.TO) and iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO). 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.

XEMC.TOCWO.NEODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.11

1.33

+0.78

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.75

1.84

+0.91

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.28

+0.12

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.20

1.76

+1.43

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

11.76

6.79

+4.96

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

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XEMC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is higher than the CWO.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XEMC.TO and CWO.NEO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

XEMC.TOCWO.NEODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.11

1.33

+0.78

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

—

0.64

—

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.59

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.35

0.43

+0.92

Correlation

The correlation between XEMC.TO and CWO.NEO is 0.53, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO - Dividend Comparison

XEMC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.26%, less than CWO.NEO's 2.64% yield.

TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XEMC.TO
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF		2.26%2.48%2.28%1.67%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
CWO.NEO
iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF		2.64%2.79%3.50%4.14%5.03%4.61%2.64%3.01%3.22%2.60%2.57%3.23%

Drawdowns

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XEMC.TO drawdown since its inception was -14.55%, smaller than the maximum CWO.NEO drawdown of -31.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XEMC.TO and CWO.NEO.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

XEMC.TOCWO.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-14.55%

-31.99%

+17.44%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.12%

-13.55%

+0.43%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-24.80%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-31.97%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.46%

-5.99%

-3.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.22%

-10.37%

+8.15%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.56%

3.66%

-0.10%

Volatility

XEMC.TO vs. CWO.NEO - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (XEMC.TO) has a higher volatility of 11.60% compared to iShares Emerging Markets Fundamental Index ETF (CWO.NEO) at 8.56%. This indicates that XEMC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CWO.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

XEMC.TOCWO.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

11.60%

8.56%

+3.04%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.49%

12.46%

+3.03%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.90%

18.32%

+1.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.61%

16.57%

-1.96%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.61%

17.54%

-2.93%