LDEM vs. EMXF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

LDEM (iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF) and EMXF (iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds from iShares - LDEM tracks the MSCI EM Extended ESG Leaders 5% Issuer Capped Index while EMXF tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Choice ESG Screened 5% Issuer Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LDEM returned 1.55%/yr vs 7.11%/yr for EMXF. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.16% expense ratio.

Performance

LDEM vs. EMXF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM) and iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF (EMXF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LDEM achieves a 4.51% return, which is significantly lower than EMXF's 24.26% return.

LDEM

• 1D: -3.58%
• 1M: -0.44%
• YTD: 4.51%
• 6M: 3.95%
• 1Y: 18.72%
• 3Y*: 14.15%
• 5Y*: 1.55%
• 10Y*: —

EMXF

• 1D: -4.12%
• 1M: 5.10%
• YTD: 24.26%
• 6M: 24.79%
• 1Y: 43.07%
• 3Y*: 21.44%
• 5Y*: 7.11%
• 10Y*: —

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

LDEM vs. EMXF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LDEM iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF	4.51%	32.49%	5.87%	6.49%	-22.46%	-2.03%	12.91%
EMXF iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF	24.26%	29.40%	8.03%	6.63%	-18.99%	4.45%	15.65%

Correlation

The correlation between LDEM and EMXF is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 13, 2020	0.85

The correlation between LDEM and EMXF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

LDEM vs. EMXF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LDEM	EMXF
Financial Services	24.2%	34.3%
Technology	23.4%	33.4%
Consumer Cyclical	11.8%	5.2%
Communication Services	10.0%	8.5%
Industrials	7.1%	5.6%
Basic Materials	6.9%	2.8%
Energy	4.2%	0.0%
Healthcare	3.4%	3.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	2.6%
Utilities	2.6%	0.6%
Real Estate	1.5%	1.4%

Return for Risk

LDEM vs. EMXF — Risk / Return Rank

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

LDEM

LDEM Risk / Return Rank: 30
LDEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
LDEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
LDEM Omega Ratio Rank: 30
LDEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
LDEM Martin Ratio Rank: 32

EMXF

EMXF Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMXF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
EMXF Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
EMXF Omega Ratio Rank: 73
EMXF Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
EMXF Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

LDEM vs. EMXF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM) and iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF (EMXF). 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.

	LDEM	EMXF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.01	2.13	-1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.47	2.82	-1.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.40	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.42	3.45	-2.03
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.47	12.92	-8.46

LDEM vs. EMXF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LDEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.01, which is lower than the EMXF Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LDEM and EMXF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

LDEM vs. EMXF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LDEM drawdown since its inception was -40.82%, which is greater than EMXF's maximum drawdown of -33.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LDEM and EMXF.

Drawdown Indicators

	LDEM	EMXF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.82%	-33.13%	-7.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.21%	-12.53%	-0.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.12%	-15.93%	+0.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.17%	-32.89%	-6.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.09%	-4.12%	-1.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.26%	-11.93%	-5.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.20%	3.34%	+0.86%

Volatility

LDEM vs. EMXF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM) is 9.21%, while iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF (EMXF) has a volatility of 10.32%. This indicates that LDEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMXF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LDEM	EMXF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.21%	10.32%	-1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.17%	18.35%	-2.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.58%	20.37%	-1.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.42%	22.50%	-3.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.91%	21.99%	-1.08%

LDEM vs. EMXF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both LDEM and EMXF have an expense ratio of 0.16%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

LDEM vs. EMXF - Dividend Comparison

LDEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.94%, more than EMXF's 2.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EMXF iShares ESG Advanced MSCI EM ETF	2.67%	3.43%	2.92%	2.25%	2.42%	1.87%	0.41%
LDEM iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF	2.94%	3.26%	2.64%	3.20%	4.93%	1.82%	1.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LDEM and EMXF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, LDEM and EMXF move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, LDEM or EMXF?

EMXF has higher volatility (10.32%) compared to LDEM (9.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LDEM dropped -40.82% vs EMXF's -33.13%.

Which ETF is better, LDEM or EMXF?

On 5-year performance, EMXF leads with 7.11% vs 1.55% for LDEM. Both ETFs have the same 0.16% expense ratio. On volatility, LDEM has been the lower-risk option at 9.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LDEM or EMXF?

Over the 5-year period, EMXF has performed better with a 7.11% return vs 1.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LDEM or EMXF?

LDEM and EMXF have the same expense ratio: 0.16% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LDEM or EMXF?

LDEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 2.67% for EMXF.

What is the main difference between LDEM and EMXF?

LDEM tracks MSCI EM Extended ESG Leaders 5% Issuer Capped Index, while EMXF tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Choice ESG Screened 5% Issuer Capped Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMXF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.01), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.