EMAD.L vs. BBDD.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

EMAD.L (State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and BBDD.L (JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - EMAD.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index, while BBDD.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMAD.L returned 6.07%/yr vs 12.35%/yr for BBDD.L. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMAD.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for BBDD.L.

Performance

EMAD.L vs. BBDD.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 JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist) (BBDD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMAD.L achieves a 18.88% return, which is significantly higher than BBDD.L's 8.71% return.

EMAD.L

• 1D: -2.28%
• 1M: -11.14%
• 6M: 11.94%
• YTD: 18.88%
• 1Y: 31.93%
• 3Y*: 20.12%
• 5Y*: 6.07%
• 10Y*: 9.49%

BBDD.L

• 1D: -1.16%
• 1M: 0.37%
• 6M: 7.85%
• YTD: 8.71%
• 1Y: 19.33%
• 3Y*: 19.47%
• 5Y*: 12.35%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EMAD.L State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	18.88%	32.13%	11.12%	6.54%	-21.75%	-6.15%	28.24%	3.81%
BBDD.L JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist)	8.71%	17.66%	25.08%	27.09%	-20.02%	28.05%	19.67%	13.23%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAD.L and BBDD.L is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 10, 2019	0.60

The correlation between EMAD.L and BBDD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMAD.L vs. BBDD.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: 54
EMAD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
EMAD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
EMAD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 52
EMAD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
EMAD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 54

BBDD.L

BBDD.L Risk / Return Rank: 64
BBDD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
BBDD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BBDD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 67
BBDD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
BBDD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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. BBDD.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 JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist) (BBDD.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	BBDD.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.35	1.64	-0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.87	2.40	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.29	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.36	2.11	+0.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.96	8.57	-1.61

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

The current EMAD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is comparable to the BBDD.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAD.L and BBDD.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. BBDD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAD.L drawdown since its inception was -46.17%, which is greater than BBDD.L's maximum drawdown of -33.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAD.L and BBDD.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMAD.L	BBDD.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.17%	-33.67%	-12.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.45%	-9.13%	-4.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.03%	-19.47%	-0.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.79%	-26.16%	-12.63%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.17%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.45%	-1.67%	-11.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.72%	-5.33%	-9.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.58%	2.25%	+2.33%

Volatility

EMAD.L vs. BBDD.L - Volatility Comparison

State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) has a higher volatility of 9.76% compared to JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist) (BBDD.L) at 3.38%. This indicates that EMAD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BBDD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMAD.L	BBDD.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.76%	3.38%	+6.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.25%	8.87%	+12.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.65%	11.76%	+11.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.82%	15.87%	+4.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.16%	17.39%	+2.77%

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

EMAD.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than BBDD.L's 0.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMAD.L vs. BBDD.L - Dividend Comparison

EMAD.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BBDD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
BBDD.L JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist)	1.12%	1.12%	0.99%	1.31%	1.44%	0.94%	1.46%	0.79%
EMAD.L State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

EMAD.L and BBDD.L have a correlation of 0.62, 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 BBDD.L?

On fees, BBDD.L is cheaper at 0.05% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

BBDD.L is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAD.L.

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

EMAD.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while BBDD.L is Large Cap Blend Equities. EMAD.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index, while BBDD.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAD.L and 0.05% for BBDD.L.