PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Growth UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CEMG.L) and Xtrackers MSCI World Consumer Staples UCITS ETF 1C (XDWS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEMG.L achieves a -7.56% return, which is significantly lower than XDWS.L's 3.29% return. Over the past 10 years, CEMG.L has underperformed XDWS.L with an annualized return of 3.80%, while XDWS.L has yielded a comparatively higher 5.57% annualized return.


CEMG.L

1D
-0.10%
1M
-0.99%
YTD
-7.56%
6M
-8.07%
1Y
-6.47%
3Y*
5.85%
5Y*
-3.07%
10Y*
3.80%

XDWS.L

1D
-0.18%
1M
-2.75%
YTD
3.29%
6M
3.85%
1Y
0.79%
3Y*
6.17%
5Y*
3.97%
10Y*
5.57%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CEMG.L
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Growth UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
-7.56%13.16%10.30%5.13%-21.91%-9.64%26.92%19.93%-19.87%40.62%
XDWS.L
Xtrackers MSCI World Consumer Staples UCITS ETF 1C
3.29%9.31%5.69%1.96%-5.24%12.84%7.75%22.32%-10.10%17.07%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMG.L and XDWS.L is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.26

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.33

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.37

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.46

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 29, 2016

0.47

Over the past year, the correlation between CEMG.L and XDWS.L has dropped to 0.26 - well below their long-term average of 0.47, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CEMG.L
XDWS.L

Consumer Cyclical

48.8%
2.2%

Consumer Defensive

27.4%
97.3%

Communication Services

13.6%

-

Healthcare

5.5%
0.2%

Technology

3.5%

-

Industrials

1.2%

-

Financial Services

0.1%
0.2%

Real Estate

0.0%

-

Basic Materials

-

-

Energy

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Consumer Cyclical

CEMG.L
48.8%
XDWS.L
2.2%

Consumer Defensive

CEMG.L
27.4%
XDWS.L
97.3%

Communication Services

CEMG.L
13.6%
XDWS.L

-

Healthcare

CEMG.L
5.5%
XDWS.L
0.2%

Technology

CEMG.L
3.5%
XDWS.L

-

Industrials

CEMG.L
1.2%
XDWS.L

-

Financial Services

CEMG.L
0.1%
XDWS.L
0.2%

Real Estate

CEMG.L
0.0%
XDWS.L

-

Basic Materials

CEMG.L

-

XDWS.L

-

Energy

CEMG.L

-

XDWS.L

-

Utilities

CEMG.L

-

XDWS.L

-

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

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEMG.L
CEMG.L Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
CEMG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CEMG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
Sortino Ratio Rank
CEMG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 55
Omega Ratio Rank
CEMG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
Calmar Ratio Rank
CEMG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 55
Martin Ratio Rank

XDWS.L
XDWS.L Risk / Return Rank: 1010
Overall Rank
XDWS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1010
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XDWS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
Sortino Ratio Rank
XDWS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 99
Omega Ratio Rank
XDWS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1010
Calmar Ratio Rank
XDWS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
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.

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Growth UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CEMG.L) and Xtrackers MSCI World Consumer Staples UCITS ETF 1C (XDWS.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.


CEMG.LXDWS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.51

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.73

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.94

1.02

-0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.43

0.08

-0.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.98

0.18

-1.16

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEMG.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.44, which is lower than the XDWS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMG.L and XDWS.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


CEMG.LXDWS.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.44

0.06

-0.51

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.15

0.33

-0.48

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.19

0.45

-0.25

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.15

0.47

-0.33

Drawdowns

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMG.L drawdown since its inception was -46.10%, which is greater than XDWS.L's maximum drawdown of -23.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMG.L and XDWS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CEMG.LXDWS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-46.10%

-23.72%

-22.38%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.90%

-9.74%

-5.16%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.50%

-11.52%

-3.98%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-42.17%

-17.53%

-24.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.10%

-23.72%

-22.38%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-22.17%

-8.95%

-13.22%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.32%

-4.20%

-12.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.61%

4.38%

+2.23%

Volatility

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Consumer Growth UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CEMG.L) and Xtrackers MSCI World Consumer Staples UCITS ETF 1C (XDWS.L) have volatilities of 4.47% and 4.62%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CEMG.LXDWS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.47%

4.62%

-0.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.10%

10.21%

+1.89%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.62%

12.38%

+2.24%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.36%

12.11%

+8.25%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.49%

12.48%

+7.01%

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEMG.L has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than XDWS.L's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

CEMG.L vs. XDWS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEMG.L nor XDWS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CEMG.L and XDWS.L have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XDWS.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XDWS.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CEMG.L.

Both ETFs track Cat 50%MSCI Wld/CD NR&50%MSCI Wld/CS NR. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for CEMG.L and 0.25% for XDWS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CEMG.L and XDWS.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