EMAD.L vs. FUQA.L
EMAD.L (State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and FUQA.L (Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - EMAD.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index, while FUQA.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Fidelity US Quality Income Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMAD.L returned 6.07%/yr vs 11.82%/yr for FUQA.L. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMAD.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FUQA.L.
Performance
EMAD.L vs. FUQA.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
EMAD.L is traded in USD, while FUQA.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the FUQA.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 FUQA.L's 9.67% 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%
FUQA.L
- 1D
- -0.80%
- 1M
- 2.14%
- 6M
- 8.41%
- YTD
- 9.67%
- 1Y
- 20.51%
- 3Y*
- 16.63%
- 5Y*
- 11.82%
- 10Y*
- —
EMAD.L vs. FUQA.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) | 18.88% | 32.13% | 11.12% | 6.54% | -21.75% | -6.15% | 28.24% | 16.78% | -14.40% | 23.86% |
FUQA.L Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc | 9.67% | 16.75% | 17.51% | 17.75% | -10.69% | 26.66% | 11.54% | 32.33% | -4.62% | -7.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMAD.L and FUQA.L is 0.53, 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 | 0.53 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.51 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.54 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2017 | 0.53 |
The correlation between EMAD.L and FUQA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.54 - 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
EMAD.L vs. FUQA.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMAD.L
FUQA.L
EMAD.L vs. FUQA.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 Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUQA.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 | FUQA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.70 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.26 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.37 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.36 | 2.56 | -0.20 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.96 | 11.21 | -4.25 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMAD.L vs. FUQA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMAD.L drawdown since its inception was -46.17%, which is greater than FUQA.L's maximum drawdown of -35.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAD.L and FUQA.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMAD.L | FUQA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -46.17% | -35.38% | -10.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.45% | -7.97% | -5.48% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.03% | -19.14% | -0.89% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.79% | -20.19% | -18.60% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -46.17% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.45% | -0.80% | -12.65% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -14.72% | -6.76% | -7.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.58% | 1.83% | +2.75% |
Volatility
EMAD.L vs. FUQA.L - Volatility Comparison
State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) has a higher volatility of 9.76% compared to Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUQA.L) at 2.57%. This indicates that EMAD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FUQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMAD.L | FUQA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.76% | 2.57% | +7.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.25% | 7.54% | +13.71% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.65% | 10.04% | +13.61% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.82% | 19.97% | +0.85% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.16% | 22.99% | -2.83% |
EMAD.L vs. FUQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMAD.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than FUQA.L's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMAD.L vs. FUQA.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither EMAD.L nor FUQA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
EMAD.L and FUQA.L have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FUQA.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FUQA.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAD.L.
EMAD.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FUQA.L is Large Cap Blend Equities. EMAD.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index, while FUQA.L tracks Fidelity US Quality Income Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAD.L and 0.25% for FUQA.L.
Find the right allocation for EMAD.L and FUQA.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