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

Performance

EMLP.L vs. EMDL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L) and SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMLP.L achieves a 1.51% return, which is significantly higher than EMDL.L's -0.66% return. Over the past 10 years, EMLP.L has outperformed EMDL.L with an annualized return of 3.99%, while EMDL.L has yielded a comparatively lower 2.73% annualized return.


EMLP.L

1D
-0.16%
1M
0.73%
YTD
1.51%
6M
1.14%
1Y
9.68%
3Y*
3.69%
5Y*
4.40%
10Y*
3.99%

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

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMLP.L
PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc
1.51%9.10%-1.68%7.52%5.55%-4.33%-1.55%9.55%-1.46%2.43%
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%

Correlation

The correlation between EMLP.L and EMDL.L is 0.73, 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

0.73

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

0.77

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

0.73

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

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 8, 2013

0.83

The correlation between EMLP.L and EMDL.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (1 year) to 0.83 (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

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

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

EMLP.L
EMLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
EMLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
EMLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
Martin Ratio Rank

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
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L) and SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.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.


EMLP.LEMDL.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.70

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.96

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.20

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.25

1.20

+1.04

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.49

3.34

+3.14

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

The current EMLP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is higher than the EMDL.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMLP.L and EMDL.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


EMLP.LEMDL.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.79

1.08

+0.70

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.54

0.22

+0.33

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.42

0.30

+0.12

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.33

0.12

+0.20

Drawdowns

EMLP.L vs. EMDL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMLP.L drawdown since its inception was -20.02%, smaller than the maximum EMDL.L drawdown of -27.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMLP.L and EMDL.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMLP.LEMDL.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.02%

-27.54%

+7.52%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.29%

-4.91%

+0.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.90%

-4.91%

+0.01%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-11.25%

-8.41%

-2.84%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-19.12%

-16.87%

-2.25%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.33%

-3.44%

+1.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.09%

-9.41%

+3.32%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.49%

1.77%

-0.28%

Volatility

EMLP.L vs. EMDL.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L) is 1.50%, while SPDR Bloomberg Emerging Markets Local Bond UCITS ETF (EMDL.L) has a volatility of 2.00%. This indicates that EMLP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMDL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMLP.LEMDL.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.50%

2.00%

-0.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.23%

4.52%

-0.29%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.40%

5.45%

-0.05%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.09%

7.22%

+0.87%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

9.52%

9.07%

+0.45%

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

EMLP.L has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than EMDL.L's 0.55% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMLP.L vs. EMDL.L - Dividend Comparison

EMLP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EMDL.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.09%.


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%
EMLP.L
PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index 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%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMLP.L and EMDL.L have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

EMDL.L is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for EMLP.L.

Both ETFs track JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD. They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for EMLP.L and 0.55% for EMDL.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMLP.L and EMDL.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