PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMAS.L vs. XKS2.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMAS.L vs. XKS2.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 Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C (XKS2.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EMAS.L is traded in GBP, while XKS2.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the XKS2.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMAS.L achieves a 81.21% return, which is significantly lower than XKS2.L's 117.88% return. Over the past 10 years, EMAS.L has underperformed XKS2.L with an annualized return of 15.67%, while XKS2.L has yielded a comparatively higher 18.77% 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%

XKS2.L

1D
-0.40%
1M
31.66%
YTD
117.88%
6M
136.19%
1Y
262.27%
3Y*
47.56%
5Y*
21.08%
10Y*
18.77%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMAS.L vs. XKS2.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
XKS2.L
Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C
117.88%85.79%-21.66%13.44%-19.57%-7.21%38.65%7.36%-16.54%32.58%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAS.L and XKS2.L is 0.77, 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

0.77

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.72

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.71

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.78

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 3, 2012

0.77

The correlation between EMAS.L and XKS2.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMAS.L vs. XKS2.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EMAS.L
XKS2.L

Technology

44.9%
56.0%

Financial Services

14.9%
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

10.9%
5.7%

Industrials

7.5%
18.7%

Communication Services

7.1%
2.6%

Basic Materials

3.9%
2.0%

Healthcare

3.3%
3.0%

Energy

2.9%
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

2.5%
1.4%

Utilities

1.5%
0.4%

Real Estate

0.7%

-

Technology

EMAS.L
44.9%
XKS2.L
56.0%

Financial Services

EMAS.L
14.9%
XKS2.L
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

EMAS.L
10.9%
XKS2.L
5.7%

Industrials

EMAS.L
7.5%
XKS2.L
18.7%

Communication Services

EMAS.L
7.1%
XKS2.L
2.6%

Basic Materials

EMAS.L
3.9%
XKS2.L
2.0%

Healthcare

EMAS.L
3.3%
XKS2.L
3.0%

Energy

EMAS.L
2.9%
XKS2.L
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

EMAS.L
2.5%
XKS2.L
1.4%

Utilities

EMAS.L
1.5%
XKS2.L
0.4%

Real Estate

EMAS.L
0.7%
XKS2.L

-

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

EMAS.L vs. XKS2.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: 9595
Overall Rank
EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
Martin Ratio Rank

XKS2.L
XKS2.L Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
XKS2.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XKS2.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
XKS2.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
XKS2.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
XKS2.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
Martin Ratio Rank
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. XKS2.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 Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C (XKS2.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.LXKS2.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-4.30

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.13

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

2.09

1.93

+0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

10.86

12.21

-1.35

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

35.47

43.37

-7.90

EMAS.L vs. XKS2.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.85, which is lower than the XKS2.L Sharpe Ratio of 7.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAS.L and XKS2.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EMAS.LXKS2.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.85

7.16

-4.30

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.63

0.84

-0.21

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.71

0.77

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.58

0.39

+0.19

Drawdowns

EMAS.L vs. XKS2.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAS.L drawdown since its inception was -34.79%, smaller than the maximum XKS2.L drawdown of -62.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAS.L and XKS2.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMAS.LXKS2.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.79%

-62.63%

+27.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.14%

-21.33%

+10.19%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.88%

-28.70%

+10.82%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.16%

-40.70%

+11.54%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.79%

-44.01%

+9.22%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.40%

+0.40%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.69%

-15.76%

+4.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.42%

6.02%

-2.60%

Volatility

EMAS.L vs. XKS2.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a higher volatility of 33.13% compared to Xtrackers MSCI Korea UCITS ETF 1C (XKS2.L) at 17.16%. This indicates that EMAS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XKS2.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMAS.LXKS2.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

33.13%

17.16%

+15.97%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

35.88%

31.60%

+4.28%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

42.40%

36.40%

+6.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.78%

25.07%

-0.29%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.18%

24.31%

-2.13%

EMAS.L vs. XKS2.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMAS.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than XKS2.L's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMAS.L vs. XKS2.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMAS.L nor XKS2.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


EMAS.L and XKS2.L have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EMAS.L is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EMAS.L is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for XKS2.L.

EMAS.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while XKS2.L tracks MSCI Korea NR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAS.L and 0.65% for XKS2.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMAS.L and XKS2.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