PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor Australia (S&P/ASX 200) UCITS ETF - Dist (LAUU.L) and SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LAUU.L achieves a 5.81% return, which is significantly lower than EMAS.L's 81.34% return. Over the past 10 years, LAUU.L has outperformed EMAS.L with an annualized return of 15.92%, while EMAS.L has yielded a comparatively lower 14.81% annualized return.


LAUU.L

1D
-0.27%
1M
-1.25%
YTD
5.81%
6M
4.48%
1Y
12.47%
3Y*
12.07%
5Y*
5.33%
10Y*
15.92%

EMAS.L

1D
38.81%
1M
45.04%
YTD
81.34%
6M
82.93%
1Y
107.50%
3Y*
39.49%
5Y*
14.63%
10Y*
14.81%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
LAUU.L
Lyxor Australia (S&P/ASX 200) UCITS ETF - Dist
5.81%17.87%1.59%12.22%-7.81%8.85%11.75%21.86%73.15%20.34%
EMAS.L
SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF
81.34%32.27%10.98%5.93%-21.64%-5.80%27.51%17.74%-14.89%42.20%

Correlation

The correlation between LAUU.L and EMAS.L is 0.59, 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

0.59

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

0.62

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

0.63

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2011

0.64

The correlation between LAUU.L and EMAS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
LAUU.L
EMAS.L

Financial Services

34.8%
13.2%

Basic Materials

24.7%
3.3%

Consumer Cyclical

6.7%
9.6%

Industrials

6.3%
6.5%

Real Estate

5.8%
0.6%

Healthcare

5.5%
2.8%

Energy

5.0%
2.4%

Communication Services

3.7%
6.1%

Consumer Defensive

3.6%
2.1%

Technology

2.5%
52.1%

Utilities

1.5%
1.3%

Financial Services

LAUU.L
34.8%
EMAS.L
13.2%

Basic Materials

LAUU.L
24.7%
EMAS.L
3.3%

Consumer Cyclical

LAUU.L
6.7%
EMAS.L
9.6%

Industrials

LAUU.L
6.3%
EMAS.L
6.5%

Real Estate

LAUU.L
5.8%
EMAS.L
0.6%

Healthcare

LAUU.L
5.5%
EMAS.L
2.8%

Energy

LAUU.L
5.0%
EMAS.L
2.4%

Communication Services

LAUU.L
3.7%
EMAS.L
6.1%

Consumer Defensive

LAUU.L
3.6%
EMAS.L
2.1%

Technology

LAUU.L
2.5%
EMAS.L
52.1%

Utilities

LAUU.L
1.5%
EMAS.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.


Return for Risk

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

LAUU.L
LAUU.L Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
LAUU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LAUU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
LAUU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2323
Omega Ratio Rank
LAUU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
LAUU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

EMAS.L
EMAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
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.

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor Australia (S&P/ASX 200) UCITS ETF - Dist (LAUU.L) and SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.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.


LAUU.LEMAS.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.99

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-5.69

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.96

-0.81

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.16

8.87

-7.70

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.39

31.84

-28.45

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LAUU.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.78, which is lower than the EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LAUU.L and EMAS.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...

Drawdowns

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LAUU.L drawdown since its inception was -53.44%, roughly equal to the maximum EMAS.L drawdown of -56.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LAUU.L and EMAS.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LAUU.LEMAS.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.44%

-56.17%

+2.73%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.66%

-13.50%

+2.84%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-23.15%

-23.56%

+0.41%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.35%

-41.52%

+16.17%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.04%

-46.26%

+1.22%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.30%

0.00%

-6.30%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.18%

-29.38%

+9.20%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.67%

3.77%

-0.10%

Volatility

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Lyxor Australia (S&P/ASX 200) UCITS ETF - Dist (LAUU.L) is 5.61%, while SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a volatility of 33.43%. This indicates that LAUU.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMAS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LAUU.LEMAS.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.61%

33.43%

-27.82%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.41%

36.64%

-23.23%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.97%

43.27%

-27.30%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.75%

30.00%

-10.25%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

29.78%

25.35%

+4.43%

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

LAUU.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than EMAS.L's 0.55% expense ratio.


Dividends

LAUU.L vs. EMAS.L - Dividend Comparison

LAUU.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.85%, while EMAS.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMAS.L
SPDR MSCI EM Asia 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%
LAUU.L
Lyxor Australia (S&P/ASX 200) UCITS ETF - Dist
2.85%3.02%4.10%3.38%4.64%3.30%2.25%3.92%4.57%3.75%4.06%2.69%

Frequently Asked Questions


LAUU.L and EMAS.L have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, LAUU.L is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

LAUU.L is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAS.L.

LAUU.L tracks MSCI Australia NR USD, while EMAS.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for LAUU.L and 0.55% for EMAS.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LAUU.L and EMAS.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