LDME.L vs. EMAG.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

LDME.L (L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and EMAG.L (L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - LDME.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the FTSE Emerging All Cap ex CW ex TC ex REITS Dividend Growth with Quality Index, while EMAG.L is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the J.P. Morgan ESG CEMBI Broad Diversified Custom Maturity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LDME.L returned 15.53%/yr vs 5.31%/yr for EMAG.L. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LDME.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for EMAG.L.

Performance

LDME.L vs. EMAG.L - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LDME.L achieves a 10.73% return, which is significantly higher than EMAG.L's 0.97% return.

LDME.L

• 1D: -0.96%
• 1M: -5.18%
• 6M: 6.28%
• YTD: 10.73%
• 1Y: 20.08%
• 3Y*: 15.53%
• 5Y*: 9.58%
• 10Y*: —

EMAG.L

• 1D: -0.65%
• 1M: -0.94%
• 6M: 0.08%
• YTD: 0.97%
• 1Y: 4.65%
• 3Y*: 5.31%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	10.73%	16.54%	11.33%	10.64%	-2.34%	3.13%
EMAG.L L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.97%	0.75%	7.46%	0.98%	-0.82%	1.27%

Correlation

The correlation between LDME.L and EMAG.L is 0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.08
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2021	0.20

The correlation between LDME.L and EMAG.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (1 year) to 0.20 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LDME.L vs. EMAG.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: 68
LDME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
LDME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
LDME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
LDME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
LDME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 62

EMAG.L

EMAG.L Risk / Return Rank: 28
EMAG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
EMAG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
EMAG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 26
EMAG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
EMAG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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. EMAG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (LDME.L) and L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAG.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	EMAG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.65	0.80	+0.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.29	1.25	+1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.14	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.11	1.14	+1.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.15	2.81	+5.34

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

The current LDME.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is higher than the EMAG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LDME.L and EMAG.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. EMAG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LDME.L drawdown since its inception was -14.82%, which is greater than EMAG.L's maximum drawdown of -11.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LDME.L and EMAG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LDME.L	EMAG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.82%	-11.32%	-3.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.44%	-4.20%	-2.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.82%	-8.30%	-6.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.32%	-2.56%	-3.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.25%	-4.05%	+0.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	1.71%	+0.75%

Volatility

LDME.L vs. EMAG.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (LDME.L) has a higher volatility of 3.98% compared to L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAG.L) at 1.96%. This indicates that LDME.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMAG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LDME.L	EMAG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.98%	1.96%	+2.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.82%	4.36%	+5.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.14%	5.96%	+6.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.65%	7.85%	+4.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3,215.14%	7.85%	+3,207.29%

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

LDME.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than EMAG.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

LDME.L vs. EMAG.L - Dividend Comparison

LDME.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.88%, while EMAG.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMAG.L L&G Emerging Markets Corporate Bond (USD) Screened UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LDME.L L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight UCITS ETF USD (Dist)	2.88%	3.04%	3.67%	3.56%	4.57%	1.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

LDME.L and EMAG.L have a correlation of 0.08, 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 EMAG.L?

On fees, EMAG.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

EMAG.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for LDME.L.

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

LDME.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while EMAG.L is Emerging Markets Bonds. LDME.L tracks FTSE Emerging All Cap ex CW ex TC ex REITS Dividend Growth with Quality Index, while EMAG.L tracks J.P. Morgan ESG CEMBI Broad Diversified Custom Maturity Index. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for LDME.L and 0.35% for EMAG.L.