PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FEMQ.L vs. UC79.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FEMQ.L vs. UC79.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FEMQ.L (Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF) and UC79.L (UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Emerging Markets Socially Responsible UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, from Fidelity and UBS respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FEMQ.L returned 9.81%/yr vs 10.24%/yr for UC79.L. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FEMQ.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for UC79.L.

Performance

FEMQ.L vs. UC79.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 UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Emerging Markets Socially Responsible UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC79.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

FEMQ.L is traded in GBP, while UC79.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the UC79.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with FEMQ.L having a 34.78% return and UC79.L slightly lower at 33.24%.

FEMQ.L

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

UC79.L

1D
-1.64%
1M
8.63%
YTD
33.24%
6M
35.28%
1Y
64.62%
3Y*
24.35%
5Y*
10.24%
10Y*
10.59%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FEMQ.L vs. UC79.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FEMQ.L
Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF		34.78%20.96%6.49%9.64%-15.02%7.70%9.31%13.76%-9.24%2.50%
UC79.L
UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Emerging Markets Socially Responsible UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis		33.24%26.95%10.88%1.14%-11.74%0.32%13.27%6.70%-5.60%4.37%

Correlation

The correlation between FEMQ.L and UC79.L is 0.86, 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

0.86

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.86

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.88

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 2, 2017

0.88

The correlation between FEMQ.L and UC79.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

FEMQ.L vs. UC79.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FEMQ.L
UC79.L

Technology

49.5%
38.0%

Financial Services

16.6%
22.6%

Consumer Cyclical

9.6%
11.0%

Industrials

7.1%
8.3%

Basic Materials

5.2%
3.3%

Energy

3.2%
0.2%

Communication Services

2.3%
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

1.9%
2.8%

Healthcare

1.8%
3.6%

Utilities

1.7%
1.0%

Real Estate

1.2%
1.3%

Technology

FEMQ.L
49.5%
UC79.L
38.0%

Financial Services

FEMQ.L
16.6%
UC79.L
22.6%

Consumer Cyclical

FEMQ.L
9.6%
UC79.L
11.0%

Industrials

FEMQ.L
7.1%
UC79.L
8.3%

Basic Materials

FEMQ.L
5.2%
UC79.L
3.3%

Energy

FEMQ.L
3.2%
UC79.L
0.2%

Communication Services

FEMQ.L
2.3%
UC79.L
8.0%

Consumer Defensive

FEMQ.L
1.9%
UC79.L
2.8%

Healthcare

FEMQ.L
1.8%
UC79.L
3.6%

Utilities

FEMQ.L
1.7%
UC79.L
1.0%

Real Estate

FEMQ.L
1.2%
UC79.L
1.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF

UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Emerging Markets Socially Responsible UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis

Often compared with FEMQ.L:
FEMQ.L vs. EMIM.LFEMQ.L vs. EMV.LFEMQ.L vs. FEMD.LFEMQ.L vs. FSMP.LFEMQ.L vs. FUSS.LFEMQ.L vs. FGLS.LFEMQ.L vs. FEM.L
Often compared with UC79.L:
UC79.L vs. HMEF.LUC79.L vs. EMV.LUC79.L vs. COPPUC79.L vs. V3AB.LUC79.L vs. HDEM.LUC79.L vs. EUFM.LUC79.L vs. 5ESG.L

Return for Risk

FEMQ.L vs. UC79.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: 9393
Overall Rank
FEMQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FEMQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
FEMQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
FEMQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
FEMQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
Martin Ratio Rank
UC79.L
UC79.L Risk / Return Rank: 5252
Overall Rank
UC79.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UC79.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 4747
Sortino Ratio Rank
UC79.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9090
Omega Ratio Rank
UC79.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
UC79.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank
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. UC79.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 UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Emerging Markets Socially Responsible UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC79.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.LUC79.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
3.52
1.44

+2.08

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
4.87
2.27

+2.60

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.67

1.57

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

6.48

2.48

+4.00

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

21.32

4.47

+16.85

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. UC79.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEMQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.52, which is higher than the UC79.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEMQ.L and UC79.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.

Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

FEMQ.LUC79.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.52

1.44

+2.08

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.65

0.41

+0.24

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.42

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.49

0.15

+0.34

Drawdowns

FEMQ.L vs. UC79.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEMQ.L drawdown since its inception was -28.13%, smaller than the maximum UC79.L drawdown of -53.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEMQ.L and UC79.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FEMQ.LUC79.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.13%

-53.04%

+24.91%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.78%

-25.91%

+17.13%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.75%

-25.91%

+11.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.31%

-25.91%

+0.60%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-39.46%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.07%

-2.45%

-1.62%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.03%

-21.80%

+13.77%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.67%

14.42%

-11.75%

Volatility

FEMQ.L vs. UC79.L - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.L) has a higher volatility of 9.03% compared to UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Emerging Markets Socially Responsible UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC79.L) at 8.44%. This indicates that FEMQ.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UC79.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FEMQ.LUC79.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.03%

8.44%

+0.59%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.19%

15.21%

-1.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.18%

44.59%

-28.41%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.00%

24.99%

-9.99%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.50%

25.01%

-7.51%

FEMQ.L vs. UC79.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEMQ.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than UC79.L's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEMQ.L vs. UC79.L - Dividend Comparison

FEMQ.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UC79.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.59%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FEMQ.L
Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
UC79.L
UBS ETF (LU) MSCI Emerging Markets Socially Responsible UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis		1.59%2.14%1.79%2.38%2.06%1.35%1.81%2.11%2.11%1.97%2.15%1.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

FEMQ.L and UC79.L have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, UC79.L is cheaper at 0.27% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

UC79.L is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FEMQ.L.

Both ETFs track MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FEMQ.L and 0.27% for UC79.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FEMQ.L and UC79.L

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