FEM.L vs. XMMS.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FEM.L (First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX UCITS ETF Acc) and XMMS.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, from First Trust and Xtrackers respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FEM.L returned 8.43%/yr vs 8.80%/yr for XMMS.L. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FEM.L charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for XMMS.L.

Performance

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX UCITS ETF Acc (FEM.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMMS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEM.L achieves a 20.02% return, which is significantly lower than XMMS.L's 28.77% return.

FEM.L

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 0.07%
• YTD: 20.02%
• 6M: 21.15%
• 1Y: 42.71%
• 3Y*: 17.72%
• 5Y*: 8.43%
• 10Y*: 10.39%

XMMS.L

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: 10.43%
• YTD: 28.77%
• 6M: 30.22%
• 1Y: 57.74%
• 3Y*: 21.57%
• 5Y*: 8.80%
• 10Y*: —

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

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FEM.L First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX UCITS ETF Acc	20.02%	18.46%	5.12%	4.21%	-3.80%	8.72%	-3.95%	15.10%	-11.64%
XMMS.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C	28.77%	24.71%	9.13%	2.81%	-10.67%	-1.61%	13.55%	14.48%	-8.71%

Correlation

The correlation between FEM.L and XMMS.L is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 25, 2018	0.78

The correlation between FEM.L and XMMS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FEM.L	XMMS.L
Technology	27.7%	36.9%
Industrials	20.3%	7.4%
Energy	13.1%	4.1%
Basic Materials	7.9%	6.5%
Financial Services	6.4%	19.5%
Utilities	6.0%	2.1%
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	9.6%
Communication Services	4.6%	7.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	3.0%
Healthcare	2.8%	2.9%
Real Estate	2.6%	1.1%

Return for Risk

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEM.L

FEM.L Risk / Return Rank: 86
FEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
FEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
FEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 83
FEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
FEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 88

XMMS.L

XMMS.L Risk / Return Rank: 90
XMMS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
XMMS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
XMMS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 92
XMMS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
XMMS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX UCITS ETF Acc (FEM.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMMS.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.

	FEM.L	XMMS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.78	3.42	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	4.36	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.63	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.11	5.21	+0.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.55	18.39	+1.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEM.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.78, which is comparable to the XMMS.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEM.L and XMMS.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

	FEM.L	XMMS.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.78	3.42	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	0.55	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.56	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	0.46	-0.11

Drawdowns

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEM.L drawdown since its inception was -35.42%, which is greater than XMMS.L's maximum drawdown of -27.76%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEM.L and XMMS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEM.L	XMMS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.42%	-27.76%	-7.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.96%	-11.04%	+4.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.83%	-15.26%	-2.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.83%	-24.32%	+6.49%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.42%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	-0.85%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.99%	-10.01%	+1.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	3.13%	-0.95%

Volatility

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX UCITS ETF Acc (FEM.L) is 5.18%, while Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMMS.L) has a volatility of 7.32%. This indicates that FEM.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XMMS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEM.L	XMMS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.18%	7.32%	-2.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.20%	14.25%	-2.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.31%	16.81%	-1.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.96%	16.55%	-0.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.69%	18.84%	-0.15%

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEM.L has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than XMMS.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEM.L vs. XMMS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEM.L nor XMMS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEM.L and XMMS.L in my portfolio?

FEM.L and XMMS.L have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FEM.L or XMMS.L?

On fees, XMMS.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEM.L or XMMS.L?

XMMS.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FEM.L.

What is the main difference between FEM.L and XMMS.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FEM.L and 0.18% for XMMS.L.