PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AEMD.L vs. XMWX.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AEMD.L vs. XMWX.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 Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C (XMWX.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

AEMD.L is traded in GBp, while XMWX.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XMWX.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AEMD.L achieves a 26.52% return, which is significantly higher than XMWX.L's 9.45% 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*

XMWX.L

1D
0.44%
1M
2.85%
YTD
9.45%
6M
10.01%
1Y
25.16%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)20252024
AEMD.L
Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D)
26.52%23.45%-0.12%
XMWX.L
Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C
9.45%14.39%3.50%

Correlation

The correlation between AEMD.L and XMWX.L is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.45

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2024

0.51

The correlation between AEMD.L and XMWX.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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


Return for Risk

AEMD.L vs. XMWX.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: 8686
Overall Rank
AEMD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AEMD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
AEMD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
AEMD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
AEMD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

XMWX.L
XMWX.L Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
XMWX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMWX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMWX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
XMWX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMWX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
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.

AEMD.L vs. XMWX.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 Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C (XMWX.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.LXMWX.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.55

1.37

+0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.51

2.76

+1.75

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.32

9.09

+6.23

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

The current AEMD.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.01, which is higher than the XMWX.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AEMD.L and XMWX.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


AEMD.LXMWX.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.01

1.95

+1.06

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.36

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.41

1.17

-0.76

Drawdowns

AEMD.L vs. XMWX.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AEMD.L drawdown since its inception was -29.09%, which is greater than XMWX.L's maximum drawdown of -14.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AEMD.L and XMWX.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AEMD.LXMWX.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-29.09%

-14.94%

-14.15%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.38%

-8.96%

-2.42%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.09%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.46%

0.00%

-2.46%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.65%

-3.18%

-10.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.36%

2.73%

+0.63%

Volatility

AEMD.L vs. XMWX.L - Volatility Comparison

Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR EUR (D) (AEMD.L) has a higher volatility of 7.48% compared to Xtrackers MSCI World ex USA UCITS ETF 1C (XMWX.L) at 3.24%. This indicates that AEMD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMWX.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AEMD.LXMWX.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.48%

3.24%

+4.24%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.63%

10.26%

+4.37%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.06%

12.68%

+4.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.40%

13.53%

+2.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.39%

13.53%

+4.86%

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

AEMD.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than XMWX.L's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

AEMD.L vs. XMWX.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


AEMD.L and XMWX.L have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XMWX.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMWX.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for AEMD.L.

AEMD.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while XMWX.L is Foreign Large Cap Equities. AEMD.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while XMWX.L tracks MSCI World ex USA Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for AEMD.L and 0.15% for XMWX.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AEMD.L and XMWX.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