EMXC.L vs. XMME.L
EMXC.L (Lyxor MSCI Emerging Markets Ex China UCITS ETF - Acc) and XMME.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - EMXC.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, EMXC.L returned 12.56%/yr vs 8.30%/yr for XMME.L. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMXC.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for XMME.L.
Performance
EMXC.L vs. XMME.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
EMXC.L is traded in EUR, while XMME.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XMME.L values have been converted to EUR using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMXC.L achieves a 37.91% return, which is significantly higher than XMME.L's 27.93% return.
EMXC.L
- 1D
- -1.79%
- 1M
- 7.53%
- YTD
- 37.91%
- 6M
- 43.53%
- 1Y
- 71.47%
- 3Y*
- 28.53%
- 5Y*
- 12.56%
- 10Y*
- —
XMME.L
- 1D
- -1.69%
- 1M
- 5.89%
- YTD
- 27.93%
- 6M
- 29.00%
- 1Y
- 49.57%
- 3Y*
- 20.84%
- 5Y*
- 8.30%
- 10Y*
- —
EMXC.L vs. XMME.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMXC.L Lyxor MSCI Emerging Markets Ex China UCITS ETF - Acc | 37.91% | 35.24% | 3.14% | 18.63% | -18.80% | 8.46% | 13.13% | 4.89% |
XMME.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C | 27.93% | 17.90% | 14.46% | 6.32% | -15.86% | 4.46% | 8.70% | 7.30% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMXC.L and XMME.L is 0.88, 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 | 0.88 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.80 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2019 | 0.81 |
The correlation between EMXC.L and XMME.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.
EMXC.L vs. XMME.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Technology
Financial Services
Industrials
Basic Materials
Consumer Cyclical
Energy
Communication Services
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Healthcare
Real Estate
Technology
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Financial Services
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Industrials
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Basic Materials
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Consumer Cyclical
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Energy
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Communication Services
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Consumer Defensive
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Utilities
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Healthcare
EMXC.L
XMME.L
Real Estate
EMXC.L
XMME.L
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
EMXC.L vs. XMME.L — Risk / Return Rank
EMXC.L
XMME.L
EMXC.L vs. XMME.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor MSCI Emerging Markets Ex China UCITS ETF - Acc (EMXC.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.
| EMXC.L | XMME.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.67 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.65 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.58 | 1.47 | +0.10 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.03 | 4.56 | +0.46 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.31 | 16.14 | +3.17 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EMXC.L | XMME.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.27 | 2.60 | +0.67 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.71 | 0.48 | +0.23 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.66 | 0.45 | +0.22 |
Drawdowns
EMXC.L vs. XMME.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMXC.L drawdown since its inception was -40.52%, which is greater than XMME.L's maximum drawdown of -32.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMXC.L and XMME.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMXC.L | XMME.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -40.52% | -32.04% | -8.48% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.14% | -10.81% | -3.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.32% | -18.26% | -2.06% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.58% | -24.43% | -4.15% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.84% | -2.65% | -0.19% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.92% | -9.51% | +0.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.69% | 3.06% | +0.63% |
Volatility
EMXC.L vs. XMME.L - Volatility Comparison
Lyxor MSCI Emerging Markets Ex China UCITS ETF - Acc (EMXC.L) has a higher volatility of 9.68% compared to Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L) at 7.91%. This indicates that EMXC.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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMXC.L | XMME.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.68% | 7.91% | +1.77% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.34% | 16.07% | +3.27% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 21.79% | 18.99% | +2.80% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.67% | 17.40% | +0.27% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.37% | 19.21% | +1.16% |
EMXC.L vs. XMME.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMXC.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than XMME.L's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
EMXC.L vs. XMME.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither EMXC.L nor XMME.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
EMXC.L and XMME.L have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EMXC.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EMXC.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for XMME.L.
EMXC.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while XMME.L tracks MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for EMXC.L and 0.18% for XMME.L.
Find the right allocation for EMXC.L and XMME.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