EMAS.L vs. LCAL.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMAS.L (SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF) and LCAL.L (Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, from State Street and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMAS.L returned 15.70%/yr vs 9.38%/yr for LCAL.L. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. EMAS.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for LCAL.L.

Performance

EMAS.L vs. LCAL.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 Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.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 LCAL.L's 32.38% 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%

LCAL.L

• 1D: -1.09%
• 1M: 12.92%
• YTD: 32.38%
• 6M: 35.00%
• 1Y: 63.67%
• 3Y*: 23.36%
• 5Y*: 9.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EMAS.L SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF	81.21%	22.99%	12.85%	0.63%	-12.26%	-4.94%	23.72%	13.21%	-7.44%
LCAL.L Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc	32.38%	24.10%	13.67%	0.95%	-11.42%	-4.08%	24.20%	14.12%	-7.85%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAS.L and LCAL.L is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.97
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2018	0.98

The correlation between EMAS.L and LCAL.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	EMAS.L	LCAL.L
Technology	44.9%	45.2%
Financial Services	14.9%	16.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.9%	10.5%
Industrials	7.5%	7.1%
Communication Services	7.1%	6.9%
Basic Materials	3.9%	3.0%
Healthcare	3.3%	3.8%
Energy	2.9%	2.1%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	2.9%
Utilities	1.5%	1.0%
Real Estate	0.7%	1.3%

Return for Risk

EMAS.L vs. LCAL.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

LCAL.L

LCAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 90
LCAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
LCAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
LCAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 92
LCAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
LCAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. LCAL.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 Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.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	LCAL.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.85	3.43	-0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	7.46	4.36	+3.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.09	1.62	+0.47
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.86	5.45	+5.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	35.47	18.54	+16.93
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. LCAL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is comparable to the LCAL.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAS.L and LCAL.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	LCAL.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.85	3.43	-0.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.63	0.53	+0.10
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.50	+0.08

Drawdowns

EMAS.L vs. LCAL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAS.L drawdown since its inception was -34.79%, roughly equal to the maximum LCAL.L drawdown of -33.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAS.L and LCAL.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMAS.L	LCAL.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.79%	-33.83%	-0.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.14%	-11.62%	+0.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.88%	-17.61%	-0.27%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.16%	-28.34%	-0.82%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.79%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.09%	+1.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.69%	-12.58%	+0.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.42%	3.42%	0.00%

Volatility

EMAS.L vs. LCAL.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a higher volatility of 33.13% compared to Lyxor MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF - Acc (LCAL.L) at 8.56%. This indicates that EMAS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LCAL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMAS.L	LCAL.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	33.13%	8.56%	+24.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	35.88%	15.54%	+20.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	42.40%	18.47%	+23.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.78%	17.71%	+7.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.18%	19.01%	+3.17%

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

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

Dividends

EMAS.L vs. LCAL.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.97, EMAS.L and LCAL.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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

On fees, LCAL.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, EMAS.L or LCAL.L?

LCAL.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAS.L.

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

Both ETFs track MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAS.L and 0.12% for LCAL.L.