UC95.L vs. EMAD.L
UC95.L (UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) and EMAD.L (State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - UC95.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, while EMAD.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, UC95.L returned 9.19%/yr vs 9.51%/yr for EMAD.L. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UC95.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for EMAD.L.
Performance
UC95.L vs. EMAD.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
UC95.L is traded in GBp, while EMAD.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the EMAD.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, UC95.L achieves a 5.16% return, which is significantly lower than EMAD.L's 21.61% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with UC95.L having a 9.19% annualized return and EMAD.L not far ahead at 9.51%.
UC95.L
- 1D
- 1.31%
- 1M
- 2.32%
- 6M
- 3.07%
- YTD
- 5.16%
- 1Y
- 7.11%
- 3Y*
- 8.48%
- 5Y*
- 7.02%
- 10Y*
- 9.19%
EMAD.L
- 1D
- -1.07%
- 1M
- -8.02%
- 6M
- 12.71%
- YTD
- 21.61%
- 1Y
- 35.67%
- 3Y*
- 19.64%
- 5Y*
- 7.01%
- 10Y*
- 9.51%
UC95.L vs. EMAD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UC95.L UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis | 5.16% | -0.82% | 15.46% | 0.41% | 4.20% | 26.08% | 0.69% | 25.15% | 4.26% | 5.75% |
EMAD.L State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 21.61% | 22.71% | 13.06% | 1.22% | -12.44% | -5.26% | 24.47% | 12.33% | -9.33% | 30.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between UC95.L and EMAD.L is -0.23, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.23 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.10 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 23, 2015 | 0.33 |
The correlation between UC95.L and EMAD.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.23 (1 year) to 0.33 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
UC95.L vs. EMAD.L — Risk / Return Rank
UC95.L
EMAD.L
UC95.L vs. EMAD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC95.L) and State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.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.
| UC95.L | EMAD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.90 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.06 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.12 | 1.29 | -0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.79 | 2.75 | -1.96 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.02 | 8.27 | -6.25 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
UC95.L vs. EMAD.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UC95.L drawdown since its inception was -28.11%, smaller than the maximum EMAD.L drawdown of -34.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UC95.L and EMAD.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UC95.L | EMAD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.11% | -34.94% | +6.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.92% | -12.90% | +3.98% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -10.14% | -18.40% | +8.26% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -11.32% | -27.23% | +15.91% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -28.11% | -34.94% | +6.83% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.45% | -12.90% | +10.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.12% | -11.76% | +7.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.52% | 4.30% | -0.78% |
Volatility
UC95.L vs. EMAD.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC95.L) is 3.91%, while State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) has a volatility of 9.62%. This indicates that UC95.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMAD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| UC95.L | EMAD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.91% | 9.62% | -5.71% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.22% | 20.03% | -11.81% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 10.48% | 22.48% | -12.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.02% | 19.19% | -7.17% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.71% | 19.51% | -5.80% |
UC95.L vs. EMAD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
UC95.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EMAD.L's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
UC95.L vs. EMAD.L - Dividend Comparison
UC95.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, while EMAD.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMAD.L State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
UC95.L UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis | 1.79% | 1.99% | 1.61% | 1.53% | 1.29% | 1.13% | 2.06% | 2.11% | 1.91% | 1.68% | 1.37% |
Frequently Asked Questions
UC95.L and EMAD.L have a correlation of -0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, UC95.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
UC95.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAD.L.
UC95.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while EMAD.L is Asia Pacific Equities. UC95.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while EMAD.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for UC95.L and 0.55% for EMAD.L.
Find the right allocation for UC95.L and EMAD.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