FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FEMQ.L (Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF) and AEME.L (Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR (C)) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, from Fidelity and Amundi respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FEMQ.L returned 9.81%/yr vs 8.48%/yr for AEME.L. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FEMQ.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for AEME.L.

Performance

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.L) and Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR (C) (AEME.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

FEMQ.L is traded in GBP, while AEME.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the AEME.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEMQ.L achieves a 34.78% return, which is significantly higher than AEME.L's 26.87% return.

FEMQ.L

• 1D: -1.83%
• 1M: 10.66%
• YTD: 34.78%
• 6M: 35.19%
• 1Y: 57.18%
• 3Y*: 23.41%
• 5Y*: 9.81%
• 10Y*: —

AEME.L

• 1D: -1.56%
• 1M: 6.71%
• YTD: 26.87%
• 6M: 28.20%
• 1Y: 54.60%
• 3Y*: 20.90%
• 5Y*: 8.48%
• 10Y*: —

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

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FEMQ.L Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF	34.78%	20.96%	6.49%	9.64%	-15.02%	1.18%
AEME.L Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR (C)	26.87%	25.33%	8.58%	2.99%	-10.31%	-8.65%

Correlation

The correlation between FEMQ.L and AEME.L is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2021	0.85

The correlation between FEMQ.L and AEME.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FEMQ.L	AEME.L
Technology	49.5%	43.0%
Financial Services	16.6%	17.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	8.7%
Industrials	7.1%	6.8%
Basic Materials	5.2%	5.9%
Energy	3.2%	3.5%
Communication Services	2.3%	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	2.7%
Healthcare	1.8%	2.6%
Utilities	1.7%	1.9%
Real Estate	1.2%	1.0%

Return for Risk

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEMQ.L

FEMQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 93
FEMQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
FEMQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
FEMQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 94
FEMQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
FEMQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 91

AEME.L

AEME.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
AEME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
AEME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
AEME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 82
AEME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
AEME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.L) and Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR (C) (AEME.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.

	FEMQ.L	AEME.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.52	2.97	+0.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.87	3.80	+1.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.67	1.55	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.48	4.92	+1.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.32	16.69	+4.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEMQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.52, which is comparable to the AEME.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEMQ.L and AEME.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

	FEMQ.L	AEME.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.52	2.97	+0.55
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65	0.49	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.49	0.43	+0.06

Drawdowns

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEMQ.L drawdown since its inception was -28.13%, roughly equal to the maximum AEME.L drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEMQ.L and AEME.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEMQ.L	AEME.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.13%	-27.77%	-0.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.78%	-11.06%	+2.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.75%	-15.44%	+0.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.31%	-24.16%	-1.15%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.07%	-2.39%	-1.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.03%	-12.58%	+4.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.67%	3.26%	-0.59%

Volatility

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.L) has a higher volatility of 9.03% compared to Amundi Index MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF DR (C) (AEME.L) at 8.00%. This indicates that FEMQ.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AEME.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEMQ.L	AEME.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.03%	8.00%	+1.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.19%	15.69%	-1.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.18%	18.30%	-2.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.00%	17.11%	-2.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.50%	17.15%	+0.35%

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEMQ.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than AEME.L's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEMQ.L vs. AEME.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither FEMQ.L nor AEME.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEMQ.L and AEME.L in my portfolio?

FEMQ.L and AEME.L have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FEMQ.L or AEME.L?

On fees, AEME.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEMQ.L or AEME.L?

AEME.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FEMQ.L.

What is the main difference between FEMQ.L and AEME.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Amundi. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FEMQ.L and 0.20% for AEME.L.