EMVL.L vs. XMME.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EMVL.L (iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD(Acc)) and XMME.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - EMVL.L tracks the MSCI EM NR USD while XMME.L tracks the MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMVL.L returned 16.16%/yr vs 7.30%/yr for XMME.L. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMVL.L charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for XMME.L.

Performance

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD(Acc) (EMVL.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMVL.L achieves a 43.83% return, which is significantly higher than XMME.L's 26.48% return.

EMVL.L

• 1D: -2.57%
• 1M: 10.78%
• YTD: 43.83%
• 6M: 48.06%
• 1Y: 85.89%
• 3Y*: 37.66%
• 5Y*: 16.16%
• 10Y*: —

XMME.L

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: 5.18%
• YTD: 26.48%
• 6M: 28.66%
• 1Y: 52.12%
• 3Y*: 24.14%
• 5Y*: 7.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EMVL.L iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD(Acc)	43.83%	43.13%	14.48%	18.38%	-16.29%	5.29%	7.16%	17.77%
XMME.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C	26.48%	33.78%	7.37%	9.61%	-20.77%	-2.81%	18.46%	18.45%

Correlation

The correlation between EMVL.L and XMME.L is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2019	0.88

The correlation between EMVL.L and XMME.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMVL.L	XMME.L
Technology	44.7%	36.9%
Financial Services	13.8%	19.5%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	9.6%
Basic Materials	10.0%	6.5%
Energy	8.1%	4.1%
Industrials	2.7%	7.4%
Communication Services	2.5%	7.0%
Real Estate	1.8%	1.1%
Healthcare	1.7%	2.9%
Utilities	1.4%	2.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	3.0%

Return for Risk

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMVL.L

EMVL.L Risk / Return Rank: 94
EMVL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
EMVL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
EMVL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 94
EMVL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
EMVL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

XMME.L

XMME.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
XMME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
XMME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
XMME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 81
XMME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
XMME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD(Acc) (EMVL.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.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.

	EMVL.L	XMME.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.07	2.64	+1.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.83	3.50	+1.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.69	1.48	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.25	4.00	+3.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	25.10	14.53	+10.57
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMVL.L Sharpe Ratio is 4.07, which is higher than the XMME.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMVL.L and XMME.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

	EMVL.L	XMME.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.07	2.64	+1.43
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81	0.39	+0.42
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.81	0.44	+0.37

Drawdowns

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMVL.L drawdown since its inception was -34.95%, smaller than the maximum XMME.L drawdown of -40.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMVL.L and XMME.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMVL.L	XMME.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.95%	-40.28%	+5.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.65%	-12.95%	+1.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.43%	-17.04%	+0.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.57%	-37.56%	+2.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.20%	-2.78%	-1.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.98%	-15.45%	+5.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.39%	3.58%	-0.19%

Volatility

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD(Acc) (EMVL.L) has a higher volatility of 9.56% compared to Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L) at 8.48%. This indicates that EMVL.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMME.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMVL.L	XMME.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.56%	8.48%	+1.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.52%	17.03%	+0.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.79%	19.71%	+1.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.00%	18.80%	+1.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.24%	19.92%	+2.32%

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMVL.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than XMME.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMVL.L vs. XMME.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMVL.L nor XMME.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMVL.L and XMME.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, EMVL.L and XMME.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.

Which ETF is better, EMVL.L or XMME.L?

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

Which ETF is cheaper, EMVL.L or XMME.L?

XMME.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for EMVL.L.

What is the main difference between EMVL.L and XMME.L?

EMVL.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while XMME.L tracks MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for EMVL.L and 0.18% for XMME.L.