PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XDPP.L vs. XMME.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XDPP.L vs. XMME.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers S&P 500 UCITS ETF 4C (XDPP.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XDPP.L is traded in GBP, while XMME.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the XMME.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XDPP.L achieves a 10.57% return, which is significantly lower than XMME.L's 28.95% return.


XDPP.L

1D
-0.24%
1M
6.00%
YTD
10.57%
6M
10.57%
1Y
29.16%
3Y*
19.33%
5Y*
10Y*

XMME.L

1D
-0.99%
1M
9.90%
YTD
28.95%
6M
30.40%
1Y
57.78%
3Y*
21.51%
5Y*
8.79%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XDPP.L vs. XMME.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
XDPP.L
Xtrackers S&P 500 UCITS ETF 4C
10.57%9.44%27.26%19.81%2.54%
XMME.L
Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C
28.95%24.25%9.25%4.13%-3.84%

Correlation

The correlation between XDPP.L and XMME.L is 0.56, 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

0.56

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

0.52

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 16, 2022

0.51

The correlation between XDPP.L and XMME.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.56 - 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

XDPP.L vs. XMME.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XDPP.L
XDPP.L Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
XDPP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XDPP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8282
Sortino Ratio Rank
XDPP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
XDPP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
XDPP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank

XMME.L
XMME.L Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
XMME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8686
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
XMME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
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.

XDPP.L vs. XMME.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers S&P 500 UCITS ETF 4C (XDPP.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.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.


XDPP.LXMME.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.37

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.30

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.52

1.58

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.99

5.32

-1.34

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.32

18.05

-3.72

XDPP.L vs. XMME.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XDPP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.78, which is comparable to the XMME.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XDPP.L and XMME.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


XDPP.LXMME.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.78

3.14

-0.37

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.52

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

1.25

0.45

+0.80

Drawdowns

XDPP.L vs. XMME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XDPP.L drawdown since its inception was -20.98%, smaller than the maximum XMME.L drawdown of -27.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XDPP.L and XMME.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XDPP.LXMME.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.98%

-27.98%

+7.00%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.28%

-10.80%

+3.52%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.98%

-15.74%

-5.24%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.54%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.24%

-0.99%

+0.75%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.49%

-10.03%

+6.54%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.03%

3.19%

-1.16%

Volatility

XDPP.L vs. XMME.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers S&P 500 UCITS ETF 4C (XDPP.L) is 2.62%, while Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L) has a volatility of 7.81%. This indicates that XDPP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XMME.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XDPP.LXMME.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.62%

7.81%

-5.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.13%

15.77%

-8.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.53%

18.32%

-7.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.90%

17.03%

-3.13%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.90%

18.92%

-5.02%

XDPP.L vs. XMME.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XDPP.L has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than XMME.L's 0.18% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

XDPP.L vs. XMME.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XDPP.L nor XMME.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


XDPP.L and XMME.L have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XDPP.L is cheaper at 0.06% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XDPP.L is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for XMME.L.

XDPP.L is categorized as S&P 500, while XMME.L is Emerging Markets Equities. XDPP.L tracks S&P 500 Index, while XMME.L tracks MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for XDPP.L and 0.18% for XMME.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XDPP.L and XMME.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