PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in SPDR ICE BofA 0-5 Year EM USD Government Bond UCITS ETF (SEMH.L) and PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SEMH.L achieves a 1.29% return, which is significantly lower than EMLP.L's 1.51% return. Over the past 10 years, SEMH.L has underperformed EMLP.L with an annualized return of 3.24%, while EMLP.L has yielded a comparatively higher 3.99% annualized return.


SEMH.L

1D
0.05%
1M
1.18%
YTD
1.29%
6M
0.87%
1Y
6.51%
3Y*
3.36%
5Y*
3.33%
10Y*
3.24%

EMLP.L

1D
-0.16%
1M
0.73%
YTD
1.51%
6M
1.14%
1Y
9.68%
3Y*
3.69%
5Y*
4.40%
10Y*
3.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SEMH.L
SPDR ICE BofA 0-5 Year EM USD Government Bond UCITS ETF
1.29%0.53%6.47%0.40%4.24%0.98%-1.05%2.26%5.87%-5.55%
EMLP.L
PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc
1.51%9.10%-1.68%7.52%5.55%-4.33%-1.55%9.55%-1.46%2.43%

Correlation

The correlation between SEMH.L and EMLP.L is 0.55, 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

0.55

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

0.59

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

0.56

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.61

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2014

0.59

The correlation between SEMH.L and EMLP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.61 - 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

SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

SEMH.L
SEMH.L Risk / Return Rank: 3131
Overall Rank
SEMH.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3131
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SEMH.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3232
Sortino Ratio Rank
SEMH.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2929
Omega Ratio Rank
SEMH.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
SEMH.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank

EMLP.L
EMLP.L Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
EMLP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMLP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMLP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
EMLP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMLP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4141
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.

SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR ICE BofA 0-5 Year EM USD Government Bond UCITS ETF (SEMH.L) and PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.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.


SEMH.LEMLP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.69

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.94

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.32

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.53

2.25

-0.72

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.17

6.49

-2.31

SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SEMH.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.10, which is lower than the EMLP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SEMH.L and EMLP.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


SEMH.LEMLP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.10

1.79

-0.69

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.44

0.54

-0.11

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.36

0.42

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.43

0.33

+0.10

Drawdowns

SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SEMH.L drawdown since its inception was -13.63%, smaller than the maximum EMLP.L drawdown of -20.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SEMH.L and EMLP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SEMH.LEMLP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-13.63%

-20.02%

+6.39%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-4.24%

-4.29%

+0.05%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-8.07%

-4.90%

-3.17%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-13.61%

-11.25%

-2.36%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-13.63%

-19.12%

+5.49%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.48%

-2.33%

+0.85%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.56%

-6.09%

+0.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.56%

1.49%

+0.07%

Volatility

SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L - Volatility Comparison

SPDR ICE BofA 0-5 Year EM USD Government Bond UCITS ETF (SEMH.L) has a higher volatility of 1.65% compared to PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc (EMLP.L) at 1.50%. This indicates that SEMH.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMLP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SEMH.LEMLP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.65%

1.50%

+0.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

4.21%

4.23%

-0.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.89%

5.40%

+0.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

7.64%

8.09%

-0.45%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

8.93%

9.52%

-0.59%

SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

SEMH.L has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than EMLP.L's 0.61% expense ratio.


Dividends

SEMH.L vs. EMLP.L - Dividend Comparison

SEMH.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.84%, while EMLP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMLP.L
PIMCO Emerging Markets Advantage Local Bond Index UCITS ETF Acc
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
SEMH.L
SPDR ICE BofA 0-5 Year EM USD Government Bond UCITS ETF
4.84%4.97%4.24%3.18%2.39%2.72%3.42%3.52%2.69%3.13%2.55%1.76%

Frequently Asked Questions


SEMH.L and EMLP.L have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

SEMH.L is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for EMLP.L.

SEMH.L tracks JPM EMBI Global Diversified TR USD, while EMLP.L tracks JPM GBI-EM Global Diversified TR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for SEMH.L and 0.61% for EMLP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SEMH.L and EMLP.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