E127.L vs. XMME.L
E127.L (Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets II UCITS ETF Dist) and XMME.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - E127.L tracks the MSCI EM NR USD while XMME.L tracks the MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, E127.L returned 9.22%/yr vs 8.46%/yr for XMME.L. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. E127.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for XMME.L.
Performance
E127.L vs. XMME.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
E127.L is traded in GBP, while XMME.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XMME.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with E127.L having a 26.18% return and XMME.L slightly higher at 27.00%.
E127.L
- 1D
- -1.40%
- 1M
- 6.35%
- YTD
- 26.18%
- 6M
- 28.72%
- 1Y
- 54.75%
- 3Y*
- 21.77%
- 5Y*
- 9.22%
- 10Y*
- —
XMME.L
- 1D
- -1.55%
- 1M
- 6.15%
- YTD
- 27.00%
- 6M
- 27.77%
- 1Y
- 53.60%
- 3Y*
- 21.03%
- 5Y*
- 8.46%
- 10Y*
- —
E127.L vs. XMME.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E127.L Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets II UCITS ETF Dist | 26.18% | 25.81% | 10.12% | 3.48% | -9.65% | -1.28% | 23.50% |
XMME.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C | 27.00% | 24.25% | 9.25% | 4.13% | -11.35% | -1.89% | 25.52% |
Correlation
The correlation between E127.L and XMME.L is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.95 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.94 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2020 | 0.93 |
The correlation between E127.L and XMME.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.
E127.L vs. XMME.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
E127.L
XMME.L
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
Basic Materials
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
E127.L
XMME.L
Financial Services
E127.L
XMME.L
Consumer Cyclical
E127.L
XMME.L
Industrials
E127.L
XMME.L
Communication Services
E127.L
XMME.L
Basic Materials
E127.L
XMME.L
Energy
E127.L
XMME.L
Consumer Defensive
E127.L
XMME.L
Healthcare
E127.L
XMME.L
Utilities
E127.L
XMME.L
Real Estate
E127.L
XMME.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
E127.L vs. XMME.L — Risk / Return Rank
E127.L
XMME.L
E127.L vs. XMME.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets II UCITS ETF Dist (E127.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.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.
| E127.L | XMME.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.34 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.40 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.60 | 1.53 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.04 | 4.94 | +0.10 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.09 | 16.72 | +1.37 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| E127.L | XMME.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.25 | 2.91 | +0.34 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.57 | 0.50 | +0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.74 | 0.44 | +0.30 |
Drawdowns
E127.L vs. XMME.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum E127.L drawdown since its inception was -26.68%, roughly equal to the maximum XMME.L drawdown of -27.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for E127.L and XMME.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| E127.L | XMME.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -26.68% | -27.98% | +1.30% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.82% | -10.80% | -0.02% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.31% | -15.74% | +0.43% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -22.89% | -24.54% | +1.65% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.33% | -2.44% | +0.11% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.34% | -10.03% | -0.31% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.02% | 3.20% | -0.18% |
Volatility
E127.L vs. XMME.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets II UCITS ETF Dist (E127.L) is 7.32%, while Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L) has a volatility of 7.88%. This indicates that E127.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XMME.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| E127.L | XMME.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.32% | 7.88% | -0.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.30% | 15.86% | -1.56% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.79% | 18.38% | -1.59% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.18% | 17.04% | -0.86% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.39% | 18.93% | -2.54% |
E127.L vs. XMME.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
E127.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than XMME.L's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
E127.L vs. XMME.L - Dividend Comparison
E127.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%, while XMME.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
E127.L Amundi MSCI Emerging Markets II UCITS ETF Dist | 1.96% | 2.47% | 4.04% | 4.40% | 2.79% | 2.25% |
XMME.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.94, E127.L and XMME.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, E127.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
E127.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for XMME.L.
E127.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while XMME.L tracks MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for E127.L and 0.18% for XMME.L.
Find the right allocation for E127.L and XMME.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