XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XEMD.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D) and FEMD.L (Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, from Xtrackers and Fidelity respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XEMD.L returned 23.87%/yr vs 23.21%/yr for FEMD.L. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XEMD.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for FEMD.L.

Performance

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D (XEMD.L) and Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

XEMD.L is traded in EUR, while FEMD.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the FEMD.L values have been converted to EUR using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XEMD.L achieves a 26.56% return, which is significantly lower than FEMD.L's 36.34% return.

XEMD.L

• 1D: -1.42%
• 1M: 5.37%
• YTD: 26.56%
• 6M: 28.79%
• 1Y: 51.83%
• 3Y*: 23.87%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FEMD.L

• 1D: -1.92%
• 1M: 10.81%
• YTD: 36.34%
• 6M: 36.62%
• 1Y: 53.56%
• 3Y*: 23.21%
• 5Y*: 9.55%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
XEMD.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D	26.56%	33.32%	7.21%	10.03%	-20.21%	-3.35%
FEMD.L Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF	36.34%	14.37%	11.89%	12.22%	-19.86%	-0.39%

Correlation

The correlation between XEMD.L and FEMD.L is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2021	0.55

Over the past year, XEMD.L and FEMD.L have become more correlated (0.76) than their long-term average of 0.55, meaning their price movements have been converging.

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XEMD.L	FEMD.L
Technology	36.9%	49.5%
Financial Services	19.5%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	9.6%
Industrials	7.4%	7.1%
Communication Services	7.0%	2.3%
Basic Materials	6.5%	5.2%
Energy	4.1%	3.2%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	1.9%
Healthcare	2.9%	1.8%
Utilities	2.1%	1.7%
Real Estate	1.1%	1.2%

Return for Risk

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XEMD.L

XEMD.L Risk / Return Rank: 82
XEMD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
XEMD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
XEMD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 83
XEMD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
XEMD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 80

FEMD.L

FEMD.L Risk / Return Rank: 93
FEMD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
FEMD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
FEMD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 94
FEMD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
FEMD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D (XEMD.L) and Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMD.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.

	XEMD.L	FEMD.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.73	3.19	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.61	4.58	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.60	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.16	5.76	-1.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.63	21.19	-5.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XEMD.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is comparable to the FEMD.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XEMD.L and FEMD.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XEMD.L	FEMD.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.73	3.19	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.61	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.66	0.59	+0.07

Drawdowns

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XEMD.L drawdown since its inception was -31.57%, smaller than the maximum FEMD.L drawdown of -33.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XEMD.L and FEMD.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XEMD.L	FEMD.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.57%	-33.52%	+1.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.23%	-9.25%	-3.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.98%	-16.52%	-0.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.30%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.61%	-4.09%	+1.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.32%	-8.47%	-0.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.44%	2.52%	+0.92%

Volatility

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D (XEMD.L) and Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMD.L) have volatilities of 9.04% and 8.71%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XEMD.L	FEMD.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.04%	8.71%	+0.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.14%	14.24%	+2.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.17%	16.73%	+3.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.14%	15.57%	+6.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.14%	18.40%	+3.74%

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XEMD.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than FEMD.L's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

XEMD.L vs. FEMD.L - Dividend Comparison

XEMD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, less than FEMD.L's 2.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FEMD.L Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF	2.73%	3.48%	3.76%	3.69%	3.99%	3.27%	2.62%	0.37%
XEMD.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D	1.33%	1.63%	2.88%	2.15%	2.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XEMD.L and FEMD.L in my portfolio?

XEMD.L and FEMD.L have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XEMD.L or FEMD.L?

On fees, XEMD.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XEMD.L or FEMD.L?

XEMD.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FEMD.L.

What is the main difference between XEMD.L and FEMD.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for XEMD.L and 0.50% for FEMD.L.