ESEM.L vs. LDME.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

ESEM.L (Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc) and LDME.L (L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - ESEM.L tracks the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Universal Select Business Screens Index while LDME.L tracks the L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ESEM.L returned 6.92%/yr vs 9.67%/yr for LDME.L. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ESEM.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for LDME.L.

Performance

ESEM.L vs. LDME.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 L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

ESEM.L is traded in USD, while LDME.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the LDME.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 23.50% return, which is significantly higher than LDME.L's 13.68% return.

ESEM.L

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: -5.15%
• 6M: 17.82%
• YTD: 23.50%
• 1Y: 40.60%
• 3Y*: 20.13%
• 5Y*: 6.92%
• 10Y*: —

LDME.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -2.20%
• 6M: 10.22%
• YTD: 13.68%
• 1Y: 24.26%
• 3Y*: 17.83%
• 5Y*: 9.67%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ESEM.L Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc	23.50%	33.09%	5.76%	9.03%	-20.65%	-5.82%
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis	13.68%	25.33%	9.47%	16.47%	-12.78%	7,213.16%

Correlation

The correlation between ESEM.L and LDME.L is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021	0.79

The correlation between ESEM.L and LDME.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ESEM.L vs. LDME.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: 75
ESEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
ESEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
ESEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 75
ESEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
ESEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 74

LDME.L

LDME.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
LDME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
LDME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
LDME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 71
LDME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
LDME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. LDME.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 L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.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.

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.

	ESEM.L	LDME.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	1.83	+0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	2.53	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.32	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.20	3.05	+0.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.96	9.77	+1.18

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

The current ESEM.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the LDME.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESEM.L and LDME.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.

Drawdowns

ESEM.L vs. LDME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESEM.L drawdown since its inception was -35.55%, which is greater than LDME.L's maximum drawdown of -26.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESEM.L and LDME.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESEM.L	LDME.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.55%	-26.64%	-8.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.95%	-8.18%	-4.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.50%	-17.19%	+0.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.11%	-26.64%	-8.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.03%	-2.32%	-3.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.97%	-6.40%	-7.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.79%	2.56%	+1.23%

Volatility

ESEM.L vs. LDME.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESEM.L) has a higher volatility of 7.56% compared to L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.L) at 4.44%. This indicates that ESEM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LDME.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ESEM.L	LDME.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.56%	4.44%	+3.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.48%	11.31%	+8.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.44%	13.65%	+7.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.65%	14.71%	+4.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.63%	3,207.10%	-3,187.47%

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

ESEM.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than LDME.L's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

ESEM.L vs. LDME.L - Dividend Comparison

ESEM.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while LDME.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.85%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ESEM.L Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis	2.85%	3.04%	3.67%	3.56%	4.57%	1.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ESEM.L and LDME.L in my portfolio?

ESEM.L and LDME.L have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ESEM.L or LDME.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, ESEM.L or LDME.L?

ESEM.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for LDME.L.

What is the main difference between ESEM.L and LDME.L?

ESEM.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Universal Select Business Screens Index, while LDME.L tracks L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and L&G. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for ESEM.L and 0.45% for LDME.L.