LEML.L vs. ACWL.L
LEML.L (Lyxor MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF - Acc USD) and ACWL.L (Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LEML.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, while ACWL.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, LEML.L returned 10.95%/yr vs 13.73%/yr for ACWL.L. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LEML.L charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for ACWL.L.
Performance
LEML.L vs. ACWL.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LEML.L achieves a 27.97% return, which is significantly higher than ACWL.L's 12.44% return. Over the past 10 years, LEML.L has underperformed ACWL.L with an annualized return of 10.95%, while ACWL.L has yielded a comparatively higher 13.73% annualized return.
LEML.L
- 1D
- -0.87%
- 1M
- 10.52%
- YTD
- 27.97%
- 6M
- 30.42%
- 1Y
- 57.27%
- 3Y*
- 21.05%
- 5Y*
- 8.49%
- 10Y*
- 10.95%
ACWL.L
- 1D
- -0.29%
- 1M
- 6.05%
- YTD
- 12.44%
- 6M
- 12.71%
- 1Y
- 30.24%
- 3Y*
- 18.94%
- 5Y*
- 12.39%
- 10Y*
- 13.73%
LEML.L vs. ACWL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LEML.L Lyxor MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF - Acc USD | 27.97% | 24.60% | 8.72% | 2.68% | -10.69% | -1.92% | 13.57% | 13.03% | -9.98% | 24.60% |
ACWL.L Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF | 12.44% | 13.63% | 21.43% | 13.09% | -8.59% | 20.41% | 9.74% | 18.01% | 2.02% | 11.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between LEML.L and ACWL.L is 0.68, 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 | 0.68 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 3, 2015 | 0.21 |
Over the past year, LEML.L and ACWL.L have become more correlated (0.68) than their long-term average of 0.21, meaning their price movements have been converging.
LEML.L vs. ACWL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
Basic Materials
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Financial Services
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Consumer Cyclical
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Industrials
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Communication Services
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Basic Materials
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Energy
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Consumer Defensive
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Healthcare
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Utilities
LEML.L
ACWL.L
Real Estate
LEML.L
ACWL.L
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
LEML.L vs. ACWL.L — Risk / Return Rank
LEML.L
ACWL.L
LEML.L vs. ACWL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF - Acc USD (LEML.L) and Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.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.
| LEML.L | ACWL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.34 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.17 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.63 | 1.59 | +0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.23 | 4.26 | +0.97 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.25 | 17.67 | +0.58 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| LEML.L | ACWL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.39 | 3.06 | +0.34 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.53 | 1.90 | -1.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.61 | 2.61 | -1.99 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.42 | 2.36 | -1.94 |
Drawdowns
LEML.L vs. ACWL.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LEML.L drawdown since its inception was -31.91%, which is greater than ACWL.L's maximum drawdown of -18.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LEML.L and ACWL.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LEML.L | ACWL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.91% | -18.15% | -13.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.89% | -7.06% | -3.83% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.34% | -18.15% | +2.81% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.14% | -18.15% | -5.99% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -27.59% | -18.15% | -9.44% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.87% | -0.29% | -0.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.48% | -2.44% | -8.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.13% | 1.71% | +1.42% |
Volatility
LEML.L vs. ACWL.L - Volatility Comparison
Lyxor MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF - Acc USD (LEML.L) has a higher volatility of 7.36% compared to Lyxor MSCI All Country World UCITS ETF (ACWL.L) at 2.64%. This indicates that LEML.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ACWL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LEML.L | ACWL.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.36% | 2.64% | +4.72% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.29% | 7.02% | +7.27% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.80% | 9.88% | +6.92% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.14% | 16.54% | -0.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.94% | 23.34% | -5.40% |
LEML.L vs. ACWL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
LEML.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than ACWL.L's 0.45% expense ratio.
Dividends
LEML.L vs. ACWL.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither LEML.L nor ACWL.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
LEML.L and ACWL.L have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ACWL.L is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ACWL.L is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for LEML.L.
LEML.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while ACWL.L is Global Equities. LEML.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while ACWL.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for LEML.L and 0.45% for ACWL.L.
Find the right allocation for LEML.L and ACWL.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