PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESEM.L) and Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

ESEM.L is traded in USD, while FEMD.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the FEMD.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESEM.L achieves a 27.82% return, which is significantly lower than FEMD.L's 34.81% return.


ESEM.L

1D
-1.43%
1M
4.08%
YTD
27.82%
6M
29.81%
1Y
51.85%
3Y*
23.60%
5Y*
10Y*

FEMD.L

1D
-1.77%
1M
8.41%
YTD
34.81%
6M
35.11%
1Y
55.00%
3Y*
26.57%
5Y*
8.55%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
ESEM.L
Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc
27.82%33.08%5.76%9.03%-20.65%-5.82%
FEMD.L
Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF
34.81%29.77%4.96%15.68%-24.54%-3.86%

Correlation

The correlation between ESEM.L and FEMD.L is 0.85, 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

0.85

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021

0.86

The correlation between ESEM.L and FEMD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ESEM.L
FEMD.L

Technology

41.4%
49.5%

Financial Services

25.1%
16.6%

Consumer Cyclical

7.7%
9.6%

Communication Services

6.2%
2.3%

Basic Materials

4.7%
5.2%

Industrials

4.5%
7.1%

Healthcare

2.7%
1.8%

Energy

2.7%
3.2%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
1.9%

Utilities

1.2%
1.7%

Real Estate

0.9%
1.2%

Technology

ESEM.L
41.4%
FEMD.L
49.5%

Financial Services

ESEM.L
25.1%
FEMD.L
16.6%

Consumer Cyclical

ESEM.L
7.7%
FEMD.L
9.6%

Communication Services

ESEM.L
6.2%
FEMD.L
2.3%

Basic Materials

ESEM.L
4.7%
FEMD.L
5.2%

Industrials

ESEM.L
4.5%
FEMD.L
7.1%

Healthcare

ESEM.L
2.7%
FEMD.L
1.8%

Energy

ESEM.L
2.7%
FEMD.L
3.2%

Consumer Defensive

ESEM.L
2.6%
FEMD.L
1.9%

Utilities

ESEM.L
1.2%
FEMD.L
1.7%

Real Estate

ESEM.L
0.9%
FEMD.L
1.2%

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

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ESEM.L
ESEM.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
ESEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ESEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
ESEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
ESEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
ESEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

FEMD.L
FEMD.L Risk / Return Rank: 9393
Overall Rank
FEMD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FEMD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
FEMD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
FEMD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
FEMD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESEM.L) and Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMD.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.


ESEM.LFEMD.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.48

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.78

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.58

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.02

4.99

-0.97

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.05

18.24

-3.19

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESEM.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is comparable to the FEMD.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESEM.L and FEMD.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ESEM.LFEMD.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.63

3.12

-0.48

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.49

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.42

0.60

-0.17

Drawdowns

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESEM.L drawdown since its inception was -35.55%, smaller than the maximum FEMD.L drawdown of -38.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESEM.L and FEMD.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ESEM.LFEMD.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.55%

-38.31%

+2.76%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.94%

-11.20%

-1.74%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.51%

-15.92%

-0.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.31%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.48%

-4.25%

+1.77%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.38%

-12.74%

-1.64%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.46%

3.07%

+0.39%

Volatility

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESEM.L) and Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMD.L) have volatilities of 9.02% and 9.30%, 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ESEM.LFEMD.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.02%

9.30%

-0.28%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.42%

15.55%

+1.87%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.87%

17.98%

+1.89%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.14%

17.37%

+1.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.14%

19.75%

-0.61%

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESEM.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than FEMD.L's 0.50% expense ratio.


Dividends

ESEM.L vs. FEMD.L - Dividend Comparison

ESEM.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FEMD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.73%.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
ESEM.L
Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
FEMD.L
Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF
2.73%3.48%3.76%3.69%3.99%3.27%2.62%0.37%

Frequently Asked Questions


ESEM.L and FEMD.L have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ESEM.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ESEM.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FEMD.L.

ESEM.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Universal Select Business Screens Index, while FEMD.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for ESEM.L and 0.50% for FEMD.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ESEM.L and FEMD.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