EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

EMAD.L (State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and ACWD.L (SPDR MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMAD.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index, while ACWD.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMAD.L returned 9.69%/yr vs 12.42%/yr for ACWD.L. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMAD.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for ACWD.L.

Performance

EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) and SPDR MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMAD.L achieves a 21.59% return, which is significantly higher than ACWD.L's 11.10% return. Over the past 10 years, EMAD.L has underperformed ACWD.L with an annualized return of 9.69%, while ACWD.L has yielded a comparatively higher 12.42% annualized return.

EMAD.L

• 1D: -1.54%
• 1M: -8.90%
• 6M: 14.74%
• YTD: 21.59%
• 1Y: 36.41%
• 3Y*: 20.83%
• 5Y*: 6.55%
• 10Y*: 9.69%

ACWD.L

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: -0.64%
• 6M: 9.52%
• YTD: 11.10%
• 1Y: 23.82%
• 3Y*: 19.08%
• 5Y*: 11.05%
• 10Y*: 12.42%

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

EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMAD.L State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	21.59%	32.13%	11.12%	6.54%	-21.75%	-6.15%	28.24%	16.78%	-14.40%	42.49%
ACWD.L SPDR MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF	11.10%	22.83%	17.76%	22.27%	-18.37%	18.77%	15.91%	25.80%	-9.85%	24.09%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAD.L and ACWD.L is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2011	0.70

The correlation between EMAD.L and ACWD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMAD.L

EMAD.L Risk / Return Rank: 57
EMAD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
EMAD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
EMAD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 55
EMAD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
EMAD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 57

ACWD.L

ACWD.L Risk / Return Rank: 72
ACWD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
ACWD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
ACWD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
ACWD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
ACWD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) and SPDR MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWD.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.

	EMAD.L	ACWD.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	1.82	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.09	2.74	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.34	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.69	2.72	-0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.03	10.81	-2.78

EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMAD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the ACWD.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAD.L and ACWD.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

EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAD.L drawdown since its inception was -46.17%, which is greater than ACWD.L's maximum drawdown of -33.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAD.L and ACWD.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMAD.L	ACWD.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.17%	-33.64%	-12.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.38%	-8.73%	-4.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.03%	-16.51%	-3.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.17%	-26.18%	-12.99%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.17%	-33.64%	-12.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.48%	-1.08%	-10.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.72%	-4.86%	-9.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.50%	2.20%	+2.30%

Volatility

EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L - Volatility Comparison

State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) has a higher volatility of 9.84% compared to SPDR MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWD.L) at 3.28%. This indicates that EMAD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMAD.L	ACWD.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.84%	3.28%	+6.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.14%	10.70%	+10.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.53%	13.03%	+10.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.80%	15.66%	+5.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.15%	15.73%	+4.42%

EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMAD.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWD.L's 0.12% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMAD.L vs. ACWD.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMAD.L nor ACWD.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMAD.L and ACWD.L in my portfolio?

EMAD.L and ACWD.L have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EMAD.L or ACWD.L?

On fees, ACWD.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMAD.L or ACWD.L?

ACWD.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAD.L.

What is the main difference between EMAD.L and ACWD.L?

EMAD.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while ACWD.L is Global Equities. EMAD.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index, while ACWD.L tracks MSCI ACWI Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAD.L and 0.12% for ACWD.L.