PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg USD Emerging Markets Sovereign UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (SBEM.L) and Fidelity Sustainable USD EM Bond UCITS ETF Inc (FSEM.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SBEM.L achieves a 2.48% return, which is significantly lower than FSEM.L's 3.32% return.


SBEM.L

1D
0.23%
1M
2.35%
YTD
2.48%
6M
2.78%
1Y
14.55%
3Y*
8.68%
5Y*
3.47%
10Y*
4.55%

FSEM.L

1D
0.09%
1M
1.82%
YTD
3.32%
6M
2.73%
1Y
13.62%
3Y*
6.08%
5Y*
2.63%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
SBEM.L
UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg USD Emerging Markets Sovereign UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis
2.48%7.42%9.46%5.94%-10.24%4.68%
FSEM.L
Fidelity Sustainable USD EM Bond UCITS ETF Inc
3.32%5.25%5.32%3.38%-8.14%4.21%

Correlation

The correlation between SBEM.L and FSEM.L is 0.64, 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

0.64

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

0.71

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

0.66

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 30, 2021

0.66

The correlation between SBEM.L and FSEM.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.71 - 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

SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

SBEM.L
SBEM.L Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
SBEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SBEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
SBEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
SBEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
SBEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank

FSEM.L
FSEM.L Risk / Return Rank: 6767
Overall Rank
FSEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FSEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
FSEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
FSEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
FSEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
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.

SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg USD Emerging Markets Sovereign UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (SBEM.L) and Fidelity Sustainable USD EM Bond UCITS ETF Inc (FSEM.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.


SBEM.LFSEM.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.53

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.81

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.32

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.10

2.38

+1.72

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.84

6.80

+5.04

SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SBEM.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.24, which is higher than the FSEM.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SBEM.L and FSEM.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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


SBEM.LFSEM.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.24

1.72

+0.53

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.39

0.26

+0.13

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.42

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.48

0.24

+0.24

Drawdowns

SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SBEM.L drawdown since its inception was -21.61%, which is greater than FSEM.L's maximum drawdown of -15.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SBEM.L and FSEM.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SBEM.LFSEM.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.61%

-15.36%

-6.25%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.53%

-5.70%

+2.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.79%

-9.08%

-0.71%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.20%

-15.36%

-1.84%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-21.61%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-1.12%

+1.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.26%

-6.53%

-0.73%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.23%

2.00%

-0.77%

Volatility

SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg USD Emerging Markets Sovereign UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (SBEM.L) is 1.66%, while Fidelity Sustainable USD EM Bond UCITS ETF Inc (FSEM.L) has a volatility of 2.91%. This indicates that SBEM.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FSEM.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SBEM.LFSEM.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.66%

2.91%

-1.25%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.58%

6.39%

-1.81%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

6.47%

7.90%

-1.43%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

8.85%

10.22%

-1.37%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.88%

10.13%

+0.75%

SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

SBEM.L has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than FSEM.L's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

SBEM.L vs. FSEM.L - Dividend Comparison

SBEM.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.53%, less than FSEM.L's 7.90% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
FSEM.L
Fidelity Sustainable USD EM Bond UCITS ETF Inc
7.90%6.31%6.49%5.74%5.01%2.41%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
SBEM.L
UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg USD Emerging Markets Sovereign UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis
6.53%7.69%6.28%6.49%5.72%4.35%4.92%4.83%4.47%4.84%2.27%

Frequently Asked Questions


SBEM.L and FSEM.L have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, SBEM.L is cheaper at 0.42% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

SBEM.L is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for FSEM.L.

They also come from different issuers: UBS and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for SBEM.L and 0.45% for FSEM.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SBEM.L and FSEM.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