PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RTWO.L vs. LDME.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RTWO.L vs. LDME.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF USD Acc (RTWO.L) and L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RTWO.L achieves a 20.10% return, which is significantly higher than LDME.L's 13.68% return.


RTWO.L

1D
0.57%
1M
1.17%
6M
14.38%
YTD
20.10%
1Y
33.31%
3Y*
16.35%
5Y*
8.50%
10Y*
11.21%

LDME.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-2.20%
6M
10.22%
YTD
13.68%
1Y
24.26%
3Y*
17.83%
5Y*
9.67%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
RTWO.L
L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF USD Acc
20.10%11.33%9.23%20.05%-18.68%2.00%
LDME.L
L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis
13.68%25.33%9.47%16.47%-12.78%7,213.16%

Correlation

The correlation between RTWO.L and LDME.L is 0.51, 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

0.51

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.46

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021

0.48

The correlation between RTWO.L and LDME.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.46 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

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

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

RTWO.L
RTWO.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
RTWO.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7575
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RTWO.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
RTWO.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
RTWO.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
RTWO.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank

LDME.L
LDME.L Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
LDME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7474
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LDME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7171
Sortino Ratio Rank
LDME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
LDME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
LDME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF USD Acc (RTWO.L) and L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.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.


RTWO.LLDME.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.33

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.32

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.65

3.05

+0.61

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.05

9.77

+2.28

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

The current RTWO.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the LDME.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RTWO.L and LDME.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

RTWO.L vs. LDME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RTWO.L drawdown since its inception was -53.86%, which is greater than LDME.L's maximum drawdown of -26.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RTWO.L and LDME.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RTWO.LLDME.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.86%

-26.64%

-27.22%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.08%

-8.18%

-0.90%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.96%

-17.19%

-9.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.71%

-26.64%

-3.07%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.01%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.25%

-2.32%

+1.07%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.95%

-6.40%

-3.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.76%

2.56%

+0.20%

Volatility

RTWO.L vs. LDME.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF USD Acc (RTWO.L) and L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis (LDME.L) have volatilities of 4.39% and 4.44%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RTWO.LLDME.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.39%

4.44%

-0.05%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.94%

11.31%

+1.63%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.25%

13.65%

+3.60%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.05%

14.71%

+6.34%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.37%

3,207.10%

-3,185.73%

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

RTWO.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than LDME.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

RTWO.L vs. LDME.L - Dividend Comparison

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


PositionTTM20252024202320222021
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%
RTWO.L
L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap Quality UCITS ETF USD Acc
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


RTWO.L and LDME.L have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, RTWO.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

RTWO.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for LDME.L.

RTWO.L is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while LDME.L is Emerging Markets Equities. RTWO.L tracks Russell 2000 0.4 Quality Target Exposure Factor Index, while LDME.L tracks L&G Emerging Markets Quality Dividends Equal Weight ETF USD Dis. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for RTWO.L and 0.45% for LDME.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RTWO.L and LDME.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