PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMES.L vs. XUEM.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMES.L vs. XUEM.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF (EMES.L) and Xtrackers USD Emerging Markets Bond UCITS ETF 2D (XUEM.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMES.L achieves a 1.50% return, which is significantly lower than XUEM.L's 2.60% return.


EMES.L

1D
0.06%
1M
1.02%
YTD
1.50%
6M
2.10%
1Y
10.68%
3Y*
9.03%
5Y*
1.35%
10Y*

XUEM.L

1D
0.16%
1M
1.00%
YTD
2.60%
6M
3.19%
1Y
12.53%
3Y*
10.25%
5Y*
1.90%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMES.L vs. XUEM.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
EMES.L
iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF
1.50%13.10%5.45%9.57%-18.82%-2.59%5.41%15.66%-0.48%
XUEM.L
Xtrackers USD Emerging Markets Bond UCITS ETF 2D
2.60%13.58%6.08%10.88%-19.42%-2.38%3.07%15.18%-0.58%

Correlation

The correlation between EMES.L and XUEM.L is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.92

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

0.93

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

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2018

0.93

The correlation between EMES.L and XUEM.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

EMES.L vs. XUEM.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMES.L
EMES.L Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
EMES.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMES.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMES.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
EMES.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4949
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMES.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank

XUEM.L
XUEM.L Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
XUEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XUEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
XUEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
XUEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6666
Calmar Ratio Rank
XUEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
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.

EMES.L vs. XUEM.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF (EMES.L) and Xtrackers USD Emerging Markets Bond UCITS ETF 2D (XUEM.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.


EMES.LXUEM.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.50

-0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.38

3.22

-0.84

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.84

13.78

-3.94

EMES.L vs. XUEM.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMES.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.95, which is comparable to the XUEM.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMES.L and XUEM.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


EMES.LXUEM.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.95

2.52

-0.57

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.16

0.21

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.35

0.28

+0.06

Drawdowns

EMES.L vs. XUEM.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMES.L drawdown since its inception was -28.84%, roughly equal to the maximum XUEM.L drawdown of -29.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMES.L and XUEM.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMES.LXUEM.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.84%

-29.94%

+1.10%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.48%

-3.88%

-0.60%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-7.22%

-8.08%

+0.86%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.84%

-29.94%

+1.10%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.35%

-0.02%

-0.33%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.85%

-7.83%

-0.02%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.08%

0.91%

+0.17%

Volatility

EMES.L vs. XUEM.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF (EMES.L) has a higher volatility of 2.26% compared to Xtrackers USD Emerging Markets Bond UCITS ETF 2D (XUEM.L) at 1.66%. This indicates that EMES.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XUEM.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMES.LXUEM.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.26%

1.66%

+0.60%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.55%

3.97%

+0.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.47%

4.97%

+0.50%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.28%

8.90%

-0.62%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.24%

10.84%

-1.60%

EMES.L vs. XUEM.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMES.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than XUEM.L's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMES.L vs. XUEM.L - Dividend Comparison

EMES.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.78%, more than XUEM.L's 5.21% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
EMES.L
iShares J.P. Morgan ESG USD EM Bond UCITS ETF
5.78%5.78%5.45%5.41%5.03%3.48%3.49%4.60%0.50%
XUEM.L
Xtrackers USD Emerging Markets Bond UCITS ETF 2D
5.21%5.30%6.79%5.27%5.92%8.49%4.18%0.61%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.92, EMES.L and XUEM.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.

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

XUEM.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for EMES.L.

Both ETFs track JPM EMBI Global Diversified TR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for EMES.L and 0.25% for XUEM.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMES.L and XUEM.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