PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
SPDM.L vs. IEMG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

SPDM.L vs. IEMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Physical Palladium ETC (SPDM.L) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SPDM.L achieves a -13.23% return, which is significantly lower than IEMG's 26.68% return. Over the past 10 years, SPDM.L has underperformed IEMG with an annualized return of 10.16%, while IEMG has yielded a comparatively higher 11.28% annualized return.


SPDM.L

1D
0.55%
1M
-9.27%
YTD
-13.23%
6M
-7.76%
1Y
36.78%
3Y*
-3.85%
5Y*
-12.62%
10Y*
10.16%

IEMG

1D
-1.08%
1M
8.84%
YTD
26.68%
6M
27.96%
1Y
53.65%
3Y*
20.49%
5Y*
8.73%
10Y*
11.28%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

SPDM.L vs. IEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SPDM.L
iShares Physical Palladium ETC
-13.23%62.20%-17.63%-41.15%5.58%-19.60%19.23%47.36%25.02%42.70%
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
26.68%23.12%8.36%5.95%-10.46%0.30%14.40%13.33%-9.88%25.50%

Correlation

The correlation between SPDM.L and IEMG is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.26

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

0.28

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

0.25

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

0.25

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 25, 2012

0.24

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

SPDM.L vs. IEMG — Risk / Return Rank

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

SPDM.L
SPDM.L Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
SPDM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SPDM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
SPDM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
SPDM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
SPDM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank

IEMG
IEMG Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
IEMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMG Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMG Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

SPDM.L vs. IEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Palladium ETC (SPDM.L) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). 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.


SPDM.LIEMGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.62

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.59

-0.41

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.10

5.02

-3.92

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.37

17.97

-15.60

SPDM.L vs. IEMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SPDM.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.88, which is lower than the IEMG Sharpe Ratio of 3.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SPDM.L and IEMG, 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


SPDM.LIEMGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.88

3.12

-2.24

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.30

0.55

-0.85

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.27

0.60

-0.33

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.14

0.44

-0.30

Drawdowns

SPDM.L vs. IEMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SPDM.L drawdown since its inception was -70.87%, which is greater than IEMG's maximum drawdown of -31.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SPDM.L and IEMG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


SPDM.LIEMGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-70.87%

-31.25%

-39.62%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-35.67%

-10.74%

-24.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-40.59%

-15.19%

-25.40%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-70.87%

-22.38%

-48.49%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-70.87%

-28.19%

-42.68%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-56.18%

-1.08%

-55.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-25.10%

-9.00%

-16.10%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

16.54%

2.99%

+13.55%

Volatility

SPDM.L vs. IEMG - Volatility Comparison

iShares Physical Palladium ETC (SPDM.L) has a higher volatility of 10.84% compared to iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) at 7.50%. This indicates that SPDM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IEMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


SPDM.LIEMGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.84%

7.50%

+3.34%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

37.16%

14.94%

+22.22%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

44.70%

17.29%

+27.41%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

41.85%

16.07%

+25.78%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

37.57%

18.91%

+18.66%

SPDM.L vs. IEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

SPDM.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than IEMG's 0.09% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

SPDM.L vs. IEMG - Dividend Comparison

SPDM.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IEMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.18%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
2.18%2.75%3.20%2.89%2.71%3.06%1.87%3.15%2.76%2.35%2.28%2.53%
SPDM.L
iShares Physical Palladium ETC
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


SPDM.L and IEMG have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IEMG is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for SPDM.L.

SPDM.L is categorized as Commodities, while IEMG is Emerging Markets Diversified. SPDM.L tracks London Palladium PM Fix, while IEMG tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Investable Market Index (USD) (Net). Their fees differ too: 0.20% for SPDM.L and 0.09% for IEMG.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SPDM.L and IEMG

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