EXIA.DE vs. AMED.DE
EXIA.DE (iShares DAX ESG UCITS ETF (DE)) and AMED.DE (Amundi MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR EUR (C)) are both Europe Equities funds - EXIA.DE tracks the DAX® ESG Target while AMED.DE tracks the MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select 5% Issuer Capped. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EXIA.DE returned 8.95%/yr vs 10.41%/yr for AMED.DE. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EXIA.DE charges 0.12%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for AMED.DE.
Performance
EXIA.DE vs. AMED.DE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EXIA.DE achieves a 4.30% return, which is significantly lower than AMED.DE's 16.87% return.
EXIA.DE
- 1D
- 0.37%
- 1M
- 3.23%
- YTD
- 4.30%
- 6M
- 7.19%
- 1Y
- 3.51%
- 3Y*
- 15.53%
- 5Y*
- 8.95%
- 10Y*
- —
AMED.DE
- 1D
- 0.51%
- 1M
- 7.96%
- YTD
- 16.87%
- 6M
- 18.54%
- 1Y
- 26.45%
- 3Y*
- 16.11%
- 5Y*
- 10.41%
- 10Y*
- 9.75%
EXIA.DE vs. AMED.DE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EXIA.DE iShares DAX ESG UCITS ETF (DE) | 4.30% | 17.20% | 18.59% | 21.57% | -14.54% | 4.16% |
AMED.DE Amundi MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR EUR (C) | 16.87% | 20.15% | 5.95% | 16.68% | -10.71% | 7.59% |
Correlation
The correlation between EXIA.DE and AMED.DE is 0.81, 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 | 0.81 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.86 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 21, 2021 | 0.90 |
The correlation between EXIA.DE and AMED.DE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
EXIA.DE vs. AMED.DE — Risk / Return Rank
EXIA.DE
AMED.DE
EXIA.DE vs. AMED.DE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares DAX ESG UCITS ETF (DE) (EXIA.DE) and Amundi MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR EUR (C) (AMED.DE). 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.
| EXIA.DE | AMED.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.52 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.05 | 1.33 | -0.28 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.30 | 2.49 | -2.19 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.86 | 9.40 | -8.55 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EXIA.DE | AMED.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 | 1.74 | -1.52 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.52 | 0.65 | -0.13 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.57 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.55 | 0.47 | +0.08 |
Drawdowns
EXIA.DE vs. AMED.DE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EXIA.DE drawdown since its inception was -28.15%, smaller than the maximum AMED.DE drawdown of -38.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EXIA.DE and AMED.DE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EXIA.DE | AMED.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.15% | -38.35% | +10.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.54% | -10.56% | -0.98% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.97% | -14.07% | -1.90% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.15% | -24.06% | -4.09% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -38.35% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.70% | -0.17% | -1.53% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.05% | -6.69% | +0.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.08% | 2.81% | +1.27% |
Volatility
EXIA.DE vs. AMED.DE - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares DAX ESG UCITS ETF (DE) (EXIA.DE) is 4.76%, while Amundi MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select UCITS ETF DR EUR (C) (AMED.DE) has a volatility of 5.61%. This indicates that EXIA.DE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AMED.DE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EXIA.DE | AMED.DE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.76% | 5.61% | -0.85% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.64% | 12.64% | 0.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.12% | 15.19% | +0.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.98% | 15.87% | +1.11% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.92% | 17.00% | -0.08% |
EXIA.DE vs. AMED.DE - Expense Ratio Comparison
EXIA.DE has a 0.12% expense ratio, which is lower than AMED.DE's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
EXIA.DE vs. AMED.DE - Dividend Comparison
Neither EXIA.DE nor AMED.DE has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
EXIA.DE and AMED.DE have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EXIA.DE is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EXIA.DE is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for AMED.DE.
EXIA.DE tracks DAX® ESG Target, while AMED.DE tracks MSCI EMU ESG Leaders Select 5% Issuer Capped. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.12% for EXIA.DE and 0.25% for AMED.DE.
Find the right allocation for EXIA.DE and AMED.DE
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