PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMIM.L vs. QEMM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMIM.L vs. QEMM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) and SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EMIM.L is traded in GBp, while QEMM is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the QEMM values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EMIM.L having a 24.23% return and QEMM slightly higher at 24.67%. Over the past 10 years, EMIM.L has outperformed QEMM with an annualized return of 11.09%, while QEMM has yielded a comparatively lower 9.65% annualized return.


EMIM.L

1D
-1.35%
1M
5.54%
YTD
24.23%
6M
26.48%
1Y
50.85%
3Y*
20.15%
5Y*
8.76%
10Y*
11.09%

QEMM

1D
-0.18%
1M
5.57%
YTD
24.67%
6M
24.81%
1Y
42.60%
3Y*
16.42%
5Y*
8.49%
10Y*
9.65%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMIM.L vs. QEMM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMIM.L
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc)
24.23%23.35%9.18%4.93%-10.17%0.74%14.91%12.69%-9.32%24.72%
QEMM
SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF
24.67%13.24%6.82%6.87%-8.05%7.34%6.72%11.01%-8.19%20.13%

Correlation

The correlation between EMIM.L and QEMM is 0.74, 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

0.74

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

0.76

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

0.75

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

0.75

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 10, 2014

0.71

The correlation between EMIM.L and QEMM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.76 - 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

EMIM.L vs. QEMM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMIM.L
EMIM.L Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
EMIM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMIM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMIM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
EMIM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMIM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank

QEMM
QEMM Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
QEMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QEMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
QEMM Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
QEMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
QEMM Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
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.

EMIM.L vs. QEMM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) and SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM). 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.


EMIM.LQEMMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.17

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.13

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.57

1.54

+0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.63

5.04

-0.41

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.57

17.58

-1.01

EMIM.L vs. QEMM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMIM.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.04, which is comparable to the QEMM Sharpe Ratio of 2.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMIM.L and QEMM, 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


EMIM.LQEMMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.04

2.87

+0.17

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.55

0.64

-0.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.62

0.60

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.49

0.47

+0.02

Drawdowns

EMIM.L vs. QEMM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMIM.L drawdown since its inception was -31.70%, which is greater than QEMM's maximum drawdown of -28.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMIM.L and QEMM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMIM.LQEMMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.70%

-28.01%

-3.69%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.92%

-8.49%

-2.43%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.56%

-15.00%

-0.56%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.98%

-15.00%

-6.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-26.46%

-24.69%

-1.77%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.39%

-1.04%

-1.35%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.71%

-5.98%

-2.73%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.06%

2.43%

+0.63%

Volatility

EMIM.L vs. QEMM - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) has a higher volatility of 7.03% compared to SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM) at 6.22%. This indicates that EMIM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QEMM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMIM.LQEMMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.03%

6.22%

+0.81%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.14%

13.07%

+1.07%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.67%

14.94%

+1.73%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.82%

13.28%

+2.54%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.81%

16.09%

+1.72%

EMIM.L vs. QEMM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMIM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than QEMM's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMIM.L vs. QEMM - Dividend Comparison

EMIM.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QEMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.35%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMIM.L
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc)
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
QEMM
SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF
4.35%4.90%5.17%4.88%4.07%2.35%2.48%3.05%2.86%2.11%2.03%2.14%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMIM.L and QEMM have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, EMIM.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

EMIM.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for QEMM.

EMIM.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while QEMM tracks MSCI EM Factor Mix A-Series (USD). They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for EMIM.L and 0.30% for QEMM.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMIM.L and QEMM

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