EMLP.L vs. EMIG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EMLP.L (PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc) and EMIG.L (UBS ETF (LU) J.P. Morgan USD EM IG ESG Diversified Bond UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc) are both Emerging Markets Bonds funds - EMLP.L tracks the JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD while EMIG.L tracks the JPM EMBI Global Diversified TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMLP.L returned 4.40%/yr vs 0.89%/yr for EMIG.L. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMLP.L charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for EMIG.L.

Performance

EMLP.L vs. EMIG.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 UBS ETF (LU) J.P. Morgan USD EM IG ESG Diversified Bond UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (EMIG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMLP.L achieves a 1.51% return, which is significantly higher than EMIG.L's 0.13% 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%

EMIG.L

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 1.05%
• YTD: 0.13%
• 6M: -0.29%
• 1Y: 7.08%
• 3Y*: 2.15%
• 5Y*: 0.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
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%	-3.69%
EMIG.L UBS ETF (LU) J.P. Morgan USD EM IG ESG Diversified Bond UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc	0.13%	1.96%	3.34%	0.56%	-7.44%	-0.84%	5.09%	-5.65%

Correlation

The correlation between EMLP.L and EMIG.L is 0.52, 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	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2019	0.57

The correlation between EMLP.L and EMIG.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMLP.L vs. EMIG.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: 50
EMLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
EMLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
EMLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 53
EMLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
EMLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 41

EMIG.L

EMIG.L Risk / Return Rank: 31
EMIG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
EMIG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
EMIG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 32
EMIG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
EMIG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 25

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. EMIG.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 UBS ETF (LU) J.P. Morgan USD EM IG ESG Diversified Bond UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (EMIG.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.L	EMIG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.22	+0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.59	1.83	+0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.21	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.25	1.40	+0.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.49	3.30	+3.19
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current EMLP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is higher than the EMIG.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMLP.L and EMIG.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMLP.L	EMIG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	1.22	+0.57
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.54	0.11	+0.44
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.42	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	-0.05	+0.38

Drawdowns

EMLP.L vs. EMIG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMLP.L drawdown since its inception was -20.02%, which is greater than EMIG.L's maximum drawdown of -17.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMLP.L and EMIG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMLP.L	EMIG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.02%	-17.02%	-3.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.29%	-5.03%	+0.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.90%	-8.09%	+3.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-11.25%	-14.52%	+3.27%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-19.12%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.33%	-7.24%	+4.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.09%	-9.25%	+3.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.49%	2.14%	-0.65%

Volatility

EMLP.L vs. EMIG.L - Volatility Comparison

PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L) and UBS ETF (LU) J.P. Morgan USD EM IG ESG Diversified Bond UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (EMIG.L) have volatilities of 1.50% and 1.49%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMLP.L	EMIG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.50%	1.49%	+0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.23%	4.31%	-0.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.40%	5.82%	-0.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.09%	8.28%	-0.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.52%	9.47%	+0.05%

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

EMLP.L has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than EMIG.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMLP.L vs. EMIG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMLP.L nor EMIG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMLP.L and EMIG.L in my portfolio?

EMLP.L and EMIG.L have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EMLP.L or EMIG.L?

On fees, EMIG.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMLP.L or EMIG.L?

EMIG.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for EMLP.L.

What is the main difference between EMLP.L and EMIG.L?

EMLP.L tracks JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD, while EMIG.L tracks JPM EMBI Global Diversified TR USD. They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for EMLP.L and 0.45% for EMIG.L.