EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EMSM.L (SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF) and FEMQ.L (Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - EMSM.L tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets SMID NR USD while FEMQ.L tracks the MSCI EM NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMSM.L returned 8.54%/yr vs 9.81%/yr for FEMQ.L. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMSM.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FEMQ.L.

Performance

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF (EMSM.L) and Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMSM.L achieves a 15.33% return, which is significantly lower than FEMQ.L's 34.78% return.

EMSM.L

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 1.01%
• YTD: 15.33%
• 6M: 16.01%
• 1Y: 30.63%
• 3Y*: 14.30%
• 5Y*: 8.54%
• 10Y*: 10.20%

FEMQ.L

• 1D: -1.83%
• 1M: 10.66%
• YTD: 34.78%
• 6M: 35.19%
• 1Y: 57.18%
• 3Y*: 23.41%
• 5Y*: 9.81%
• 10Y*: —

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

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMSM.L SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF	15.33%	12.15%	4.60%	15.48%	-7.03%	17.67%	16.12%	5.70%	-13.10%	3.72%
FEMQ.L Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF	34.78%	20.96%	6.49%	9.64%	-15.02%	7.70%	9.31%	13.76%	-9.24%	2.50%

Correlation

The correlation between EMSM.L and FEMQ.L is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 2, 2017	0.84

The correlation between EMSM.L and FEMQ.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMSM.L	FEMQ.L
Technology	22.6%	49.5%
Industrials	18.5%	7.1%
Financial Services	11.1%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	9.6%
Basic Materials	9.5%	5.2%
Healthcare	9.3%	1.8%
Real Estate	6.0%	1.2%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	1.9%
Communication Services	2.9%	2.3%
Utilities	2.7%	1.7%
Energy	2.3%	3.2%

Return for Risk

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMSM.L

EMSM.L Risk / Return Rank: 61
EMSM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
EMSM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
EMSM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 61
EMSM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
EMSM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 59

FEMQ.L

FEMQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 93
FEMQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
FEMQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
FEMQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 94
FEMQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
FEMQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF (EMSM.L) and Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.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.

	EMSM.L	FEMQ.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.98	3.52	-1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	4.87	-2.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.67	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	6.48	-3.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.41	21.32	-10.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMSM.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.98, which is lower than the FEMQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMSM.L and FEMQ.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

	EMSM.L	FEMQ.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.98	3.52	-1.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62	0.65	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.62	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.49	-0.04

Drawdowns

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMSM.L drawdown since its inception was -37.81%, which is greater than FEMQ.L's maximum drawdown of -28.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMSM.L and FEMQ.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSM.L	FEMQ.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.81%	-28.13%	-9.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.43%	-8.78%	-0.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.07%	-14.75%	-5.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.07%	-25.31%	+5.24%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.81%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.13%	-4.07%	+1.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.93%	-8.03%	+0.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	2.67%	+0.26%

Volatility

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap UCITS ETF (EMSM.L) is 6.16%, while Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.L) has a volatility of 9.03%. This indicates that EMSM.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FEMQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMSM.L	FEMQ.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.16%	9.03%	-2.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.10%	14.19%	-1.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.44%	16.18%	-0.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.82%	15.00%	-1.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.38%	17.50%	-1.12%

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSM.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than FEMQ.L's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMSM.L vs. FEMQ.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMSM.L nor FEMQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMSM.L and FEMQ.L in my portfolio?

EMSM.L and FEMQ.L have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EMSM.L or FEMQ.L?

On fees, FEMQ.L is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMSM.L or FEMQ.L?

FEMQ.L is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMSM.L.

What is the main difference between EMSM.L and FEMQ.L?

EMSM.L tracks MSCI Emerging Markets SMID NR USD, while FEMQ.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMSM.L and 0.50% for FEMQ.L.