PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
QEMM vs. LDEM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

QEMM vs. LDEM

Last updated Aug 4, 2026
Documentation

QEMM (SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF) and LDEM (iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - QEMM tracks the MSCI EM Factor Mix A-Series (USD) while LDEM tracks the MSCI EM Extended ESG Leaders 5% Issuer Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, QEMM returned 7.29%/yr vs 2.20%/yr for LDEM. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. QEMM charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for LDEM.

Performance

QEMM vs. LDEM - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QEMM achieves a 19.94% return, which is significantly higher than LDEM's 4.06% return.

QEMM

1D
0.67%
1M
-0.23%
6M
11.50%
YTD
19.94%
1Y
31.80%
3Y*
16.98%
5Y*
7.29%
10Y*
7.66%
ALL TIME*
5.41%

LDEM

1D
0.75%
1M
1.98%
6M
-2.84%
YTD
4.06%
1Y
14.36%
3Y*
12.64%
5Y*
2.20%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
5.02%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

LDEM

iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF
$34.08K$42.01K$92.23K

QEMM

SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF
$197.01K$214.03K$314.95K

QEMM vs. LDEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
QEMM
SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF		19.94%21.92%4.98%12.50%-17.82%6.34%13.06%
LDEM
iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF		4.06%32.49%5.87%6.49%-22.46%-2.03%16.30%

Correlation

The correlation between QEMM and LDEM is 0.91, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.91

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.90

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.89

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2020

0.88

The correlation between QEMM and LDEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

QEMM vs. LDEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
QEMM
LDEM

Technology

36.5%
23.9%

Financial Services

19.8%
24.8%

Consumer Cyclical

8.0%
12.0%

Basic Materials

6.7%
6.7%

Industrials

6.6%
7.6%

Communication Services

6.6%
9.9%

Consumer Defensive

5.0%
3.4%

Energy

4.3%
4.4%

Healthcare

3.4%
3.6%

Utilities

2.4%
2.5%

Real Estate

0.8%
1.4%

Technology

QEMM
36.5%
LDEM
23.9%

Financial Services

QEMM
19.8%
LDEM
24.8%

Consumer Cyclical

QEMM
8.0%
LDEM
12.0%

Basic Materials

QEMM
6.7%
LDEM
6.7%

Industrials

QEMM
6.6%
LDEM
7.6%

Communication Services

QEMM
6.6%
LDEM
9.9%

Consumer Defensive

QEMM
5.0%
LDEM
3.4%

Energy

QEMM
4.3%
LDEM
4.4%

Healthcare

QEMM
3.4%
LDEM
3.6%

Utilities

QEMM
2.4%
LDEM
2.5%

Real Estate

QEMM
0.8%
LDEM
1.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF

iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF

Often compared with QEMM:
QEMM vs. JHMBQEMM vs. SPDWQEMM vs. MXFP.LQEMM vs. DVYEQEMM vs. EMGFQEMM vs. AEME.LQEMM vs. URTH
Often compared with LDEM:
LDEM vs. EMXFLDEM vs. DIVISLAB.NSLDEM vs. ESGELDEM vs. EEMLDEM vs. FNDELDEM vs. IEMGLDEM vs. AVEM

Return for Risk

QEMM vs. LDEM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
QEMM
QEMM Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
QEMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QEMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6464
Sortino Ratio Rank
QEMM Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
QEMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
QEMM Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
Martin Ratio Rank
LDEM
LDEM Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
LDEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LDEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
LDEM Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
LDEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
LDEM Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

QEMM vs. LDEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM) and iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM). 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.

QEMMLDEMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.65
0.74

+0.91

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.23
1.13

+1.10

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.15

+0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.07

1.09

+1.98

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.25

2.95

+6.30

QEMM vs. LDEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QEMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is higher than the LDEM Sharpe Ratio of 0.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QEMM and LDEM, 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

QEMM vs. LDEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QEMM drawdown since its inception was -36.89%, smaller than the maximum LDEM drawdown of -40.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QEMM and LDEM.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

QEMMLDEMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.89%

-40.82%

+3.93%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.40%

-13.21%

+2.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.03%

-15.12%

-1.91%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.12%

-38.26%

+11.14%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.89%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.98%

-6.49%

+1.51%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.56%

-17.09%

+6.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.45%

4.89%

-1.44%

Volatility

QEMM vs. LDEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM) is 6.18%, while iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM) has a volatility of 6.84%. This indicates that QEMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LDEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

QEMMLDEMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.18%

6.84%

-0.66%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.52%

16.91%

+0.61%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.37%

19.55%

-0.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.79%

19.50%

-3.71%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.02%

20.92%

-3.90%

QEMM vs. LDEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

QEMM has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than LDEM's 0.16% expense ratio.

Dividends

QEMM vs. LDEM - Dividend Comparison

QEMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.50%, more than LDEM's 2.95% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
LDEM
iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF		2.95%3.26%2.64%3.20%4.93%1.82%1.89%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
QEMM
SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF		4.50%4.90%5.17%4.88%4.07%2.35%2.48%3.05%2.86%2.11%2.03%2.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.91, QEMM and LDEM 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.

LDEM has higher volatility (6.84%) compared to QEMM (6.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QEMM dropped -36.89% vs LDEM's -40.82%.

On 5-year performance, QEMM leads with 7.29% vs 2.20% for LDEM. On fees, LDEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, QEMM has been the lower-risk option at 6.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, QEMM has performed better with a 7.29% return vs 2.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

LDEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for QEMM.

QEMM has the higher dividend yield at 4.50%, compared with 2.95% for LDEM.

QEMM tracks MSCI EM Factor Mix A-Series (USD), while LDEM tracks MSCI EM Extended ESG Leaders 5% Issuer Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for QEMM and 0.16% for LDEM.

QEMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.65 vs 0.74), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for QEMM and LDEM

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