EMXF vs. LDEM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EMXF (iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF) and LDEM (iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds from iShares - EMXF tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Choice ESG Screened 5% Issuer Capped Index while LDEM tracks the MSCI EM Extended ESG Leaders 5% Issuer Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMXF returned 7.11%/yr vs 1.55%/yr for LDEM. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.16% expense ratio.

Performance

EMXF vs. LDEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF (EMXF) and iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMXF achieves a 24.26% return, which is significantly higher than LDEM's 4.51% return.

EMXF

• 1D: -4.12%
• 1M: 5.10%
• YTD: 24.26%
• 6M: 24.79%
• 1Y: 43.07%
• 3Y*: 21.44%
• 5Y*: 7.11%
• 10Y*: —

LDEM

• 1D: -3.58%
• 1M: -0.44%
• YTD: 4.51%
• 6M: 3.95%
• 1Y: 18.72%
• 3Y*: 14.15%
• 5Y*: 1.55%
• 10Y*: —

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

EMXF vs. LDEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EMXF iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF	24.26%	29.40%	8.03%	6.63%	-18.99%	4.45%	15.65%
LDEM iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF	4.51%	32.49%	5.87%	6.49%	-22.46%	-2.03%	12.91%

Correlation

The correlation between EMXF and LDEM is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 13, 2020	0.85

The correlation between EMXF and LDEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMXF vs. LDEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMXF	LDEM
Financial Services	34.3%	24.2%
Technology	33.4%	23.4%
Communication Services	8.5%	10.0%
Industrials	5.6%	7.1%
Consumer Cyclical	5.2%	11.8%
Healthcare	3.6%	3.4%
Basic Materials	2.8%	6.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	3.3%
Real Estate	1.4%	1.5%
Utilities	0.6%	2.6%
Energy	0.0%	4.2%

Return for Risk

EMXF vs. LDEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMXF

EMXF Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMXF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
EMXF Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
EMXF Omega Ratio Rank: 73
EMXF Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
EMXF Martin Ratio Rank: 74

LDEM

LDEM Risk / Return Rank: 30
LDEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
LDEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
LDEM Omega Ratio Rank: 30
LDEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
LDEM Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

EMXF vs. LDEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF (EMXF) and iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	EMXF	LDEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	1.01	+1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.82	1.47	+1.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.20	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.45	1.42	+2.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.92	4.47	+8.46

EMXF vs. LDEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMXF Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is higher than the LDEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMXF and LDEM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EMXF vs. LDEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMXF drawdown since its inception was -33.13%, smaller than the maximum LDEM drawdown of -40.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMXF and LDEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMXF	LDEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.13%	-40.82%	+7.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.53%	-13.21%	+0.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.93%	-15.12%	-0.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.89%	-39.17%	+6.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.12%	-6.09%	+1.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.93%	-17.26%	+5.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.34%	4.20%	-0.86%

Volatility

EMXF vs. LDEM - Volatility Comparison

iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF (EMXF) has a higher volatility of 10.32% compared to iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM) at 9.21%. This indicates that EMXF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LDEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMXF	LDEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.32%	9.21%	+1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.35%	16.17%	+2.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.37%	18.58%	+1.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.50%	19.42%	+3.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.99%	20.91%	+1.08%

EMXF vs. LDEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EMXF and LDEM have an expense ratio of 0.16%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

EMXF vs. LDEM - Dividend Comparison

EMXF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.67%, less than LDEM's 2.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EMXF iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF	2.67%	3.43%	2.92%	2.25%	2.42%	1.87%	0.41%
LDEM iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF	2.94%	3.26%	2.64%	3.20%	4.93%	1.82%	1.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMXF and LDEM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, EMXF and LDEM 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 is riskier, EMXF or LDEM?

EMXF has higher volatility (10.32%) compared to LDEM (9.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMXF dropped -33.13% vs LDEM's -40.82%.

Which ETF is better, EMXF or LDEM?

On 5-year performance, EMXF leads with 7.11% vs 1.55% for LDEM. Both ETFs have the same 0.16% expense ratio. On volatility, LDEM has been the lower-risk option at 9.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMXF or LDEM?

Over the 5-year period, EMXF has performed better with a 7.11% return vs 1.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMXF or LDEM?

EMXF and LDEM have the same expense ratio: 0.16% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMXF or LDEM?

LDEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 2.67% for EMXF.

What is the main difference between EMXF and LDEM?

EMXF tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Choice ESG Screened 5% Issuer Capped Index, while LDEM tracks MSCI EM Extended ESG Leaders 5% Issuer Capped Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMXF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.01), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.