ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

ETRA.L (L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc) and EMAU.L (L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - ETRA.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Solactive Energy Transition Commodity Total Return Index, while EMAU.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan ESG CEMBI Broad Diversified Custom Maturity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ETRA.L returned 28.20% vs 4.45% for EMAU.L. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ETRA.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for EMAU.L.

Performance

ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc (ETRA.L) and L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

ETRA.L is traded in GBp, while EMAU.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the EMAU.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ETRA.L achieves a 9.29% return, which is significantly higher than EMAU.L's 0.88% return.

ETRA.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -1.63%
• 6M: 1.76%
• YTD: 9.29%
• 1Y: 28.20%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMAU.L

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: -1.15%
• 6M: 0.30%
• YTD: 0.88%
• 1Y: 4.45%
• 3Y*: 5.13%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ETRA.L L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc	9.29%	19.38%	-20.97%
EMAU.L L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.88%	0.36%	4.37%

Correlation

The correlation between ETRA.L and EMAU.L is 0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2024	0.08

Return for Risk

ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ETRA.L

ETRA.L Risk / Return Rank: 35
ETRA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
ETRA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
ETRA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ETRA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
ETRA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 21

EMAU.L

EMAU.L Risk / Return Rank: 63
EMAU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
EMAU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EMAU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 64
EMAU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
EMAU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc (ETRA.L) and L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAU.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.

	ETRA.L	EMAU.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.64	0.66	-0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.27	0.97	+0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.12	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.12	0.91	+0.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.11	2.39	-0.28

ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ETRA.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is comparable to the EMAU.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ETRA.L and EMAU.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

ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ETRA.L drawdown since its inception was -26.76%, which is greater than EMAU.L's maximum drawdown of -12.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ETRA.L and EMAU.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ETRA.L	EMAU.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.76%	-12.44%	-14.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.14%	-4.84%	-20.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-8.77%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.10%	-2.84%	-8.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.76%	-4.47%	-14.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.34%	1.86%	+11.48%

Volatility

ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc (ETRA.L) has a higher volatility of 4.48% compared to L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAU.L) at 2.21%. This indicates that ETRA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMAU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ETRA.L	EMAU.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.48%	2.21%	+2.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.25%	5.38%	+5.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.84%	6.67%	+37.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.96%	8.44%	+24.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.96%	8.44%	+24.52%

ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ETRA.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than EMAU.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

ETRA.L vs. EMAU.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ETRA.L nor EMAU.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ETRA.L and EMAU.L in my portfolio?

ETRA.L and EMAU.L have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ETRA.L or EMAU.L?

On fees, EMAU.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ETRA.L or EMAU.L?

EMAU.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for ETRA.L.

What is the main difference between ETRA.L and EMAU.L?

ETRA.L is categorized as Commodities, while EMAU.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. ETRA.L tracks Solactive Energy Transition Commodity Total Return Index, while EMAU.L tracks J.P. Morgan ESG CEMBI Broad Diversified Custom Maturity Index. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for ETRA.L and 0.35% for EMAU.L.