EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMAS.L (SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF) and ACWI.L (SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMAS.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while ACWI.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMAS.L returned 15.67%/yr vs 13.66%/yr for ACWI.L. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMAS.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for ACWI.L.

Performance

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) and SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF (ACWI.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMAS.L achieves a 81.21% return, which is significantly higher than ACWI.L's 11.87% return. Over the past 10 years, EMAS.L has outperformed ACWI.L with an annualized return of 15.67%, while ACWI.L has yielded a comparatively lower 13.66% annualized return.

EMAS.L

• 1D: 38.70%
• 1M: 51.83%
• YTD: 81.21%
• 6M: 83.22%
• 1Y: 120.08%
• 3Y*: 35.88%
• 5Y*: 15.70%
• 10Y*: 15.67%

ACWI.L

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 5.83%
• YTD: 11.87%
• 6M: 12.47%
• 1Y: 30.54%
• 3Y*: 18.34%
• 5Y*: 12.53%
• 10Y*: 13.66%

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

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMAS.L SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF	81.21%	22.99%	12.85%	0.63%	-12.26%	-4.94%	23.72%	13.21%	-9.79%	29.84%
ACWI.L SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF	11.87%	14.32%	19.66%	15.59%	-8.59%	20.28%	11.89%	21.92%	-4.58%	12.93%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAS.L and ACWI.L is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 3, 2012	0.73

The correlation between EMAS.L and ACWI.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMAS.L	ACWI.L
Technology	44.9%	29.2%
Financial Services	14.9%	16.5%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	9.3%
Industrials	7.5%	10.9%
Communication Services	7.1%	9.0%
Basic Materials	3.9%	3.6%
Healthcare	3.3%	8.0%
Energy	2.9%	4.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	4.9%
Utilities	1.5%	2.7%
Real Estate	0.7%	1.7%

Return for Risk

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMAS.L

EMAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 95
EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
EMAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
EMAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 96

ACWI.L

ACWI.L Risk / Return Rank: 85
ACWI.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
ACWI.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
ACWI.L Omega Ratio Rank: 88
ACWI.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ACWI.L Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) and SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF (ACWI.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.

	EMAS.L	ACWI.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	2.92	-0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	7.46	4.02	+3.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.09	1.56	+0.53
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.86	4.31	+6.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	35.47	17.47	+18.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is comparable to the ACWI.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAS.L and ACWI.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMAS.L	ACWI.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.85	2.92	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.63	0.96	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71	0.95	-0.24
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.81	-0.22

Drawdowns

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAS.L drawdown since its inception was -34.79%, which is greater than ACWI.L's maximum drawdown of -25.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAS.L and ACWI.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMAS.L	ACWI.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.79%	-25.44%	-9.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.14%	-7.05%	-4.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.88%	-18.07%	+0.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.16%	-18.07%	-11.09%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.79%	-25.44%	-9.35%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.37%	+0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.69%	-3.67%	-8.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.42%	1.74%	+1.68%

Volatility

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a higher volatility of 33.13% compared to SPDR MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF (ACWI.L) at 2.89%. This indicates that EMAS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWI.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMAS.L	ACWI.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	33.13%	2.89%	+30.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.88%	7.76%	+28.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.40%	10.45%	+31.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.78%	13.05%	+11.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.18%	14.39%	+7.79%

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMAS.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWI.L's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMAS.L vs. ACWI.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMAS.L nor ACWI.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMAS.L and ACWI.L in my portfolio?

EMAS.L and ACWI.L have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EMAS.L or ACWI.L?

On fees, ACWI.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMAS.L or ACWI.L?

ACWI.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAS.L.

What is the main difference between EMAS.L and ACWI.L?

EMAS.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while ACWI.L is Global Equities. EMAS.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while ACWI.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAS.L and 0.40% for ACWI.L.