AEMD.L vs. LDME.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

AEMD.L (Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D)) and LDME.L (L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - AEMD.L tracks the MSCI EM NR USD while LDME.L tracks the FTSE Emerging All Cap ex CW ex TC ex REITS Dividend Growth with Quality Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, AEMD.L returned 6.78%/yr vs 9.58%/yr for LDME.L. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AEMD.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for LDME.L.

Performance

AEMD.L vs. LDME.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 L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (LDME.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 16.48% return, which is significantly higher than LDME.L's 10.73% return.

AEMD.L

• 1D: -1.78%
• 1M: -9.87%
• 6M: 9.59%
• YTD: 16.48%
• 1Y: 31.38%
• 3Y*: 17.95%
• 5Y*: 6.78%
• 10Y*: —

LDME.L

• 1D: -0.96%
• 1M: -5.18%
• 6M: 6.28%
• YTD: 10.73%
• 1Y: 20.08%
• 3Y*: 15.53%
• 5Y*: 9.58%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AEMD.L Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D)	16.48%	25.85%	8.39%	2.59%	-10.30%	-3.96%
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	10.73%	16.54%	11.33%	10.64%	-2.34%	7,358.59%

Correlation

The correlation between AEMD.L and LDME.L is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021	0.80

The correlation between AEMD.L and LDME.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AEMD.L vs. LDME.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: 62
AEMD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
AEMD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
AEMD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 64
AEMD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
AEMD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 60

LDME.L

LDME.L Risk / Return Rank: 68
LDME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
LDME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
LDME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
LDME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
LDME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. LDME.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 L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (LDME.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	AEMD.L	LDME.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	1.65	-0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	2.29	-0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.29	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.50	3.11	-0.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.98	8.15	-0.17

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

The current AEMD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is comparable to the LDME.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AEMD.L and LDME.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.

Drawdowns

AEMD.L vs. LDME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AEMD.L drawdown since its inception was -33.02%, which is greater than LDME.L's maximum drawdown of -14.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AEMD.L and LDME.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	AEMD.L	LDME.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.02%	-14.82%	-18.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.49%	-6.44%	-6.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.24%	-14.82%	-0.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.27%	-14.82%	-7.45%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.49%	-6.32%	-6.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.57%	-3.25%	-9.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.92%	2.46%	+1.46%

Volatility

AEMD.L vs. LDME.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D) (AEMD.L) has a higher volatility of 8.95% compared to L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (LDME.L) at 3.98%. This indicates that AEMD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LDME.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AEMD.L	LDME.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.95%	3.98%	+4.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.83%	9.82%	+8.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.93%	12.14%	+7.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.83%	12.65%	+4.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.75%	3,215.14%	-3,196.39%

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

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

Dividends

AEMD.L vs. LDME.L - Dividend Comparison

AEMD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.66%, less than LDME.L's 2.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
AEMD.L Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D)	1.66%	1.93%	2.31%	2.49%	3.14%	2.21%	1.66%	2.35%	1.90%
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	2.88%	3.04%	3.67%	3.56%	4.57%	1.55%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

AEMD.L and LDME.L have a correlation of 0.79, 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 LDME.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 LDME.L?

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

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

AEMD.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while LDME.L tracks FTSE Emerging All Cap ex CW ex TC ex REITS Dividend Growth with Quality Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and L&G. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for AEMD.L and 0.45% for LDME.L.