UC99.L vs. EMAD.L
UC99.L (UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Quality UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) and EMAD.L (State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - UC99.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, UC99.L returned 15.95%/yr vs 9.64%/yr for EMAD.L. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UC99.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for EMAD.L.
Performance
UC99.L vs. EMAD.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
UC99.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, UC99.L achieves a 11.11% return, which is significantly lower than EMAD.L's 23.00% return. Over the past 10 years, UC99.L has outperformed EMAD.L with an annualized return of 15.95%, while EMAD.L has yielded a comparatively lower 9.64% annualized return.
UC99.L
- 1D
- -0.71%
- 1M
- 0.39%
- 6M
- 10.65%
- YTD
- 11.11%
- 1Y
- 24.12%
- 3Y*
- 18.65%
- 5Y*
- 13.07%
- 10Y*
- 15.95%
EMAD.L
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -8.28%
- 6M
- 15.83%
- YTD
- 23.00%
- 1Y
- 37.08%
- 3Y*
- 20.09%
- 5Y*
- 7.25%
- 10Y*
- 9.64%
UC99.L vs. EMAD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
UC99.L UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Quality UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis | 11.11% | 9.22% | 23.54% | 28.83% | -14.41% | 29.84% | 17.71% | 33.68% | 1.70% | 14.02% |
EMAD.L State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 23.00% | 22.71% | 13.06% | 1.22% | -12.44% | -5.26% | 24.47% | 12.33% | -9.33% | 30.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between UC99.L and EMAD.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 | 0.49 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.56 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 23, 2015 | 0.57 |
The correlation between UC99.L and EMAD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.57 - 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
UC99.L vs. EMAD.L — Risk / Return Rank
UC99.L
EMAD.L
UC99.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 Quality UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC99.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.
| UC99.L | EMAD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.25 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.47 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.31 | +0.03 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.58 | 3.11 | -0.53 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.29 | 8.65 | +0.64 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
UC99.L vs. EMAD.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum UC99.L drawdown since its inception was -23.04%, smaller than the maximum EMAD.L drawdown of -34.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UC99.L and EMAD.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| UC99.L | EMAD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -23.04% | -34.94% | +11.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.29% | -11.91% | +2.62% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -23.04% | -18.40% | -4.64% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.04% | -27.23% | +4.19% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.04% | -34.94% | +11.90% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.82% | -11.91% | +10.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.01% | -11.76% | +7.75% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.59% | 4.29% | -1.70% |
Volatility
UC99.L vs. EMAD.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Quality UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC99.L) is 3.68%, while State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) has a volatility of 9.61%. This indicates that UC99.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
| UC99.L | EMAD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.68% | 9.61% | -5.93% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.29% | 19.99% | -10.70% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.67% | 22.45% | -9.78% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.12% | 19.18% | -3.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.39% | 19.50% | -3.11% |
UC99.L vs. EMAD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
UC99.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EMAD.L's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
UC99.L vs. EMAD.L - Dividend Comparison
UC99.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.41%, 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% |
UC99.L UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Quality UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis | 0.41% | 0.46% | 0.67% | 0.85% | 0.79% | 0.78% | 0.98% | 0.78% | 1.27% | 0.93% | 1.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
UC99.L and EMAD.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, UC99.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
UC99.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAD.L.
UC99.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while EMAD.L is Asia Pacific Equities. UC99.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 UC99.L and 0.55% for EMAD.L.
Find the right allocation for UC99.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