ESEM.L vs. SGLS.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ESEM.L (Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc) and SGLS.L (Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - ESEM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Universal Select Business Screens Index, while SGLS.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the Gold (GBP Hedged). Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ESEM.L returned 23.60%/yr vs 32.62%/yr for SGLS.L. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ESEM.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for SGLS.L.

Performance

ESEM.L vs. SGLS.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 Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

ESEM.L is traded in USD, while SGLS.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the SGLS.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 higher than SGLS.L's 2.76% return.

ESEM.L

• 1D: -1.43%
• 1M: 7.41%
• YTD: 27.82%
• 6M: 30.89%
• 1Y: 52.29%
• 3Y*: 23.60%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SGLS.L

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: -3.32%
• YTD: 2.76%
• 6M: 5.98%
• 1Y: 29.53%
• 3Y*: 32.62%
• 5Y*: 16.10%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ESEM.L Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc	27.82%	33.08%	5.76%	9.03%	-20.65%	-5.82%
SGLS.L Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC	2.76%	76.07%	22.71%	17.37%	-11.75%	-2.54%

Correlation

The correlation between ESEM.L and SGLS.L is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021	0.35

Return for Risk

ESEM.L vs. SGLS.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: 80
ESEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ESEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
ESEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 82
ESEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
ESEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

SGLS.L

SGLS.L Risk / Return Rank: 34
SGLS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
SGLS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
SGLS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 37
SGLS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
SGLS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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. SGLS.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 Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.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.L	SGLS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	1.09	+1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.52	1.52	+1.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.20	+0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.02	1.46	+2.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.05	3.60	+11.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current ESEM.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is higher than the SGLS.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESEM.L and SGLS.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

	ESEM.L	SGLS.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.63	1.09	+1.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.80	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.76	-0.33

Drawdowns

ESEM.L vs. SGLS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESEM.L drawdown since its inception was -35.55%, smaller than the maximum SGLS.L drawdown of -37.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESEM.L and SGLS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESEM.L	SGLS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.55%	-37.85%	+2.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.94%	-20.20%	+7.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.51%	-20.20%	+3.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.79%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.48%	-18.32%	+15.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.38%	-10.15%	-4.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	8.19%	-4.73%

Volatility

ESEM.L vs. SGLS.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESEM.L) has a higher volatility of 9.02% compared to Invesco Physical Gold GBP Hedged ETC (SGLS.L) at 7.27%. This indicates that ESEM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SGLS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ESEM.L	SGLS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.02%	7.27%	+1.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.42%	23.33%	-5.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.87%	27.02%	-7.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.14%	22.37%	-3.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.14%	22.81%	-3.67%

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

ESEM.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than SGLS.L's 0.34% expense ratio.

Dividends

ESEM.L vs. SGLS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ESEM.L nor SGLS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

ESEM.L and SGLS.L have a correlation of 0.45, 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 SGLS.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 SGLS.L?

ESEM.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for SGLS.L.

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

ESEM.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while SGLS.L is Precious Metals. ESEM.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Universal Select Business Screens Index, while SGLS.L tracks Gold (GBP Hedged). Their fees differ too: 0.19% for ESEM.L and 0.34% for SGLS.L.