EMAG.L vs. LDME.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

EMAG.L (L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and LDME.L (L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis) are both exchange-traded funds - EMAG.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan ESG CEMBI Broad Diversified Custom Maturity Index, while LDME.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMAG.L returned 5.31%/yr vs 16.11%/yr for LDME.L. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMAG.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for LDME.L.

Performance

EMAG.L vs. LDME.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAG.L) and L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMAG.L achieves a 0.97% return, which is significantly lower than LDME.L's 11.94% return.

EMAG.L

• 1D: -0.65%
• 1M: -0.63%
• 6M: 0.63%
• YTD: 0.97%
• 1Y: 4.81%
• 3Y*: 5.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LDME.L

• 1D: -0.95%
• 1M: -4.00%
• 6M: 8.40%
• YTD: 11.94%
• 1Y: 21.67%
• 3Y*: 16.11%
• 5Y*: 9.82%
• 10Y*: —

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

EMAG.L vs. LDME.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMAG.L L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.97%	0.75%	7.46%	0.98%	-0.82%	1.27%
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis	11.94%	16.54%	11.33%	10.64%	-2.34%	3.13%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAG.L and LDME.L is 0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.09
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2021	0.20

The correlation between EMAG.L and LDME.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (1 year) to 0.20 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EMAG.L vs. LDME.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMAG.L

EMAG.L Risk / Return Rank: 26
EMAG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
EMAG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
EMAG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 24
EMAG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
EMAG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 26

LDME.L

LDME.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
LDME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
LDME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
LDME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 71
LDME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
LDME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

EMAG.L vs. LDME.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAG.L) and L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.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.

	EMAG.L	LDME.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.80	1.88	-1.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.25	2.59	-1.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.33	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.14	3.53	-2.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.81	9.38	-6.57

EMAG.L vs. LDME.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMAG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.80, which is lower than the LDME.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAG.L and LDME.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

EMAG.L vs. LDME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAG.L drawdown since its inception was -11.32%, smaller than the maximum LDME.L drawdown of -14.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAG.L and LDME.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMAG.L	LDME.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.32%	-14.82%	+3.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.20%	-6.44%	+2.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.30%	-14.82%	+6.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-14.82%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.56%	-5.29%	+2.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.05%	-3.24%	-0.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.71%	2.42%	-0.71%

Volatility

EMAG.L vs. LDME.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAG.L) is 1.96%, while L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.L) has a volatility of 3.97%. This indicates that EMAG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LDME.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMAG.L	LDME.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.96%	3.97%	-2.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.36%	9.77%	-5.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.96%	12.12%	-6.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.85%	12.65%	-4.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.85%	3,216.41%	-3,208.56%

EMAG.L vs. LDME.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMAG.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than LDME.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMAG.L vs. LDME.L - Dividend Comparison

EMAG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LDME.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.85%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMAG.L L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis	2.85%	3.04%	3.67%	3.56%	4.57%	1.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMAG.L and LDME.L in my portfolio?

EMAG.L and LDME.L have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EMAG.L or LDME.L?

On fees, EMAG.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMAG.L or LDME.L?

EMAG.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for LDME.L.

What is the main difference between EMAG.L and LDME.L?

EMAG.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while LDME.L is Emerging Markets Equities. EMAG.L tracks J.P. Morgan ESG CEMBI Broad Diversified Custom Maturity Index, while LDME.L tracks L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EMAG.L and 0.45% for LDME.L.