LDME.L vs. AUCO.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

LDME.L (L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis) and AUCO.L (L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LDME.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis, while AUCO.L is a Gold fund tracking the STOXX Global Gold Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LDME.L returned 9.82%/yr vs 22.49%/yr for AUCO.L. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LDME.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for AUCO.L.

Performance

LDME.L vs. AUCO.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.L) and L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCO.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

LDME.L is traded in GBp, while AUCO.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the AUCO.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LDME.L achieves a 11.94% return, which is significantly higher than AUCO.L's -15.05% return.

LDME.L

• 1D: -0.95%
• 1M: -4.00%
• 6M: 8.40%
• YTD: 11.94%
• 1Y: 21.67%
• 3Y*: 16.11%
• 5Y*: 9.82%
• 10Y*: —

AUCO.L

• 1D: -3.99%
• 1M: -15.23%
• 6M: -23.89%
• YTD: -15.05%
• 1Y: 46.48%
• 3Y*: 39.74%
• 5Y*: 22.49%
• 10Y*: 11.70%

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

LDME.L vs. AUCO.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis	11.94%	16.54%	11.33%	10.64%	-2.34%	7,358.59%
AUCO.L L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF	-15.05%	161.75%	20.02%	9.27%	-4.11%	-1.37%

Correlation

The correlation between LDME.L and AUCO.L is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.30
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021	0.24

The correlation between LDME.L and AUCO.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (all time) to 0.40 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LDME.L vs. AUCO.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

LDME.L

LDME.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
LDME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
LDME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
LDME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 71
LDME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
LDME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

AUCO.L

AUCO.L Risk / Return Rank: 30
AUCO.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
AUCO.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
AUCO.L Omega Ratio Rank: 31
AUCO.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
AUCO.L Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

LDME.L vs. AUCO.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.L) and L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCO.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.

	LDME.L	AUCO.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.88	0.97	+0.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.59	1.48	+1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.18	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.53	1.24	+2.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.38	2.96	+6.43

LDME.L vs. AUCO.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LDME.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is higher than the AUCO.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LDME.L and AUCO.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.

Drawdowns

LDME.L vs. AUCO.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LDME.L drawdown since its inception was -14.82%, smaller than the maximum AUCO.L drawdown of -77.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LDME.L and AUCO.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LDME.L	AUCO.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.82%	-77.54%	+62.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.44%	-37.18%	+30.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.82%	-37.18%	+22.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.82%	-39.29%	+24.47%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-45.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.29%	-36.60%	+31.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.24%	-34.38%	+31.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.42%	15.68%	-13.26%

Volatility

LDME.L vs. AUCO.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.L) is 3.97%, while L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCO.L) has a volatility of 16.14%. This indicates that LDME.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AUCO.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LDME.L	AUCO.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.97%	16.14%	-12.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.77%	38.38%	-28.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.12%	47.49%	-35.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.65%	36.64%	-23.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3,216.41%	34.19%	+3,182.22%

LDME.L vs. AUCO.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

LDME.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than AUCO.L's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

LDME.L vs. AUCO.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
AUCO.L L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis	2.85%	3.04%	3.67%	3.56%	4.57%	1.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LDME.L and AUCO.L in my portfolio?

LDME.L and AUCO.L have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LDME.L or AUCO.L?

On fees, LDME.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LDME.L or AUCO.L?

LDME.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for AUCO.L.

What is the main difference between LDME.L and AUCO.L?

LDME.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while AUCO.L is Gold. LDME.L tracks L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis, while AUCO.L tracks STOXX Global Gold Miners Index. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LDME.L and 0.55% for AUCO.L.