PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.L) and Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing (VEMT.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMDL.L achieves a -0.66% return, which is significantly lower than VEMT.L's 1.55% return.


EMDL.L

1D
0.02%
1M
0.48%
YTD
-0.66%
6M
-0.55%
1Y
5.93%
3Y*
2.66%
5Y*
1.57%
10Y*
2.73%

VEMT.L

1D
0.03%
1M
1.60%
YTD
1.55%
6M
1.13%
1Y
10.55%
3Y*
5.98%
5Y*
3.40%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMDL.L
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF
-0.66%7.85%-1.25%3.50%0.26%-7.31%0.02%8.55%-0.27%4.06%
VEMT.L
Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing
1.55%4.07%8.08%3.44%-5.19%-0.56%2.53%9.67%2.79%-1.59%

Correlation

The correlation between EMDL.L and VEMT.L is 0.58, 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

0.58

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

0.59

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

0.64

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2016

0.70

The correlation between EMDL.L and VEMT.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.58 (1 year) to 0.70 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMDL.L
EMDL.L Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
EMDL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMDL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMDL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
EMDL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMDL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank

VEMT.L
VEMT.L Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
VEMT.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VEMT.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
VEMT.L Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
VEMT.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
VEMT.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4343
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.

EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.L) and Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing (VEMT.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.


EMDL.LVEMT.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.64

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.84

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.30

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.20

2.44

-1.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.34

6.86

-3.52

EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMDL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is lower than the VEMT.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMDL.L and VEMT.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


EMDL.LVEMT.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.08

1.72

-0.64

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.22

0.42

-0.20

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.30

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.12

0.30

-0.18

Drawdowns

EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMDL.L drawdown since its inception was -27.54%, which is greater than VEMT.L's maximum drawdown of -14.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMDL.L and VEMT.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMDL.LVEMT.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.54%

-14.64%

-12.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.91%

-4.31%

-0.60%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.91%

-8.59%

+3.68%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-8.41%

-11.41%

+3.00%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-16.87%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.44%

-0.50%

-2.94%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.41%

-5.88%

-3.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.77%

1.53%

+0.24%

Volatility

EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.L) has a higher volatility of 2.00% compared to Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing (VEMT.L) at 1.33%. This indicates that EMDL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VEMT.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMDL.LVEMT.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.00%

1.33%

+0.67%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.52%

4.50%

+0.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.45%

6.11%

-0.66%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.22%

8.13%

-0.91%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.07%

9.15%

-0.08%

EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMDL.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than VEMT.L's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMDL.L vs. VEMT.L - Dividend Comparison

EMDL.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.09%, less than VEMT.L's 5.92% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMDL.L
SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF
5.09%4.87%4.87%4.23%4.03%4.01%3.97%4.56%4.06%4.92%4.02%5.26%
VEMT.L
Vanguard USD Emerging Markets Government Bond UCITS ETF Distributing
5.92%6.17%5.74%5.56%4.88%3.81%4.47%4.46%4.44%4.81%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMDL.L and VEMT.L have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, VEMT.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

VEMT.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMDL.L.

EMDL.L tracks JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD, while VEMT.L tracks JPM EMBI Global Diversified TR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMDL.L and 0.25% for VEMT.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMDL.L and VEMT.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