AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

AEMD.L (Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D)) and ACWL.L (Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AEMD.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, while ACWL.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AEMD.L returned 5.91%/yr vs 12.34%/yr for ACWL.L. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. AEMD.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for ACWL.L.

Performance

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D) (AEMD.L) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AEMD.L achieves a 26.52% return, which is significantly higher than ACWL.L's 12.22% return.

AEMD.L

• 1D: -1.67%
• 1M: 4.11%
• YTD: 26.52%
• 6M: 24.48%
• 1Y: 50.35%
• 3Y*: 18.11%
• 5Y*: 5.91%
• 10Y*: —

ACWL.L

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 3.87%
• YTD: 12.22%
• 6M: 11.66%
• 1Y: 29.49%
• 3Y*: 17.87%
• 5Y*: 12.34%
• 10Y*: 13.71%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AEMD.L Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D)	26.52%	23.45%	6.02%	0.02%	-13.08%	-4.36%	12.63%	6.68%
ACWL.L Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF	12.22%	13.63%	21.43%	13.09%	-8.59%	20.41%	9.74%	12.21%

Correlation

The correlation between AEMD.L and ACWL.L is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2019	0.28

Over the past year, AEMD.L and ACWL.L have become more correlated (0.68) than their long-term average of 0.28, meaning their price movements have been converging.

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AEMD.L	ACWL.L
Technology	41.4%	29.3%
Financial Services	18.2%	16.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.0%	9.3%
Industrials	7.0%	10.9%
Communication Services	6.4%	9.0%
Basic Materials	6.0%	3.7%
Energy	3.7%	4.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.8%	5.0%
Healthcare	2.7%	8.1%
Utilities	2.0%	2.6%
Real Estate	1.0%	1.8%

Return for Risk

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

AEMD.L

AEMD.L Risk / Return Rank: 86
AEMD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
AEMD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
AEMD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 89
AEMD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
AEMD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

ACWL.L

ACWL.L Risk / Return Rank: 87
ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
ACWL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
ACWL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
ACWL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ACWL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D) (AEMD.L) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.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.

	AEMD.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.01	3.01	0.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.86	4.09	-0.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.58	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.51	4.20	+0.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.32	17.39	-2.07
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AEMD.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.01, which is comparable to the ACWL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AEMD.L and ACWL.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AEMD.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.01	3.01	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36	1.89	-1.53
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	2.60	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	2.35	-1.95

Drawdowns

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AEMD.L drawdown since its inception was -29.09%, which is greater than ACWL.L's maximum drawdown of -18.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AEMD.L and ACWL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	AEMD.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.09%	-18.15%	-10.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.38%	-7.06%	-4.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.09%	-18.15%	+1.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.56%	-18.15%	-7.41%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.15%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.46%	-0.22%	-2.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.65%	-2.43%	-11.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.36%	1.71%	+1.65%

Volatility

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D) (AEMD.L) has a higher volatility of 7.48% compared to Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) at 2.63%. This indicates that AEMD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AEMD.L	ACWL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.48%	2.63%	+4.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.63%	6.99%	+7.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.06%	9.84%	+7.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.40%	16.52%	-0.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.39%	23.32%	-4.93%

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

AEMD.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than ACWL.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

AEMD.L vs. ACWL.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither AEMD.L nor ACWL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AEMD.L and ACWL.L in my portfolio?

AEMD.L and ACWL.L have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, AEMD.L or ACWL.L?

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

Which ETF is cheaper, AEMD.L or ACWL.L?

AEMD.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ACWL.L.

What is the main difference between AEMD.L and ACWL.L?

AEMD.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while ACWL.L is Global Equities. AEMD.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for AEMD.L and 0.45% for ACWL.L.