XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.L
XEMD.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D) and XNAQ.L (Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XEMD.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, while XNAQ.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, XEMD.L returned 23.87%/yr vs 24.62%/yr for XNAQ.L. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XEMD.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XNAQ.L.
Performance
XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
XEMD.L is traded in EUR, while XNAQ.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the XNAQ.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 higher than XNAQ.L's 20.96% return.
XEMD.L
- 1D
- -1.42%
- 1M
- 5.37%
- YTD
- 26.56%
- 6M
- 28.79%
- 1Y
- 51.83%
- 3Y*
- 23.87%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
XNAQ.L
- 1D
- -0.71%
- 1M
- 9.43%
- YTD
- 20.96%
- 6M
- 19.65%
- 1Y
- 38.13%
- 3Y*
- 24.62%
- 5Y*
- 18.80%
- 10Y*
- —
XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.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% |
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C | 20.96% | 5.88% | 34.82% | 50.96% | -29.29% | 0.40% |
Correlation
The correlation between XEMD.L and XNAQ.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 | 0.44 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2021 | 0.36 |
The correlation between XEMD.L and XNAQ.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.36 (all time) to 0.55 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
Basic Materials
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Financial Services
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Consumer Cyclical
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Industrials
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Communication Services
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Basic Materials
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Energy
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Consumer Defensive
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Healthcare
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Utilities
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
Real Estate
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
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
XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.L — Risk / Return Rank
XEMD.L
XNAQ.L
XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.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 Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.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 | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.34 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.49 | 1.43 | +0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.16 | 3.77 | +0.39 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.63 | 11.27 | +4.36 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| XEMD.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.73 | 2.46 | +0.27 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.95 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.66 | 0.92 | -0.26 |
Drawdowns
XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XEMD.L drawdown since its inception was -31.57%, roughly equal to the maximum XNAQ.L drawdown of -31.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XEMD.L and XNAQ.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XEMD.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.57% | -31.21% | -0.36% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.23% | -10.08% | -3.15% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.98% | -26.51% | +9.53% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -31.21% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.61% | -0.71% | -1.90% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.32% | -7.79% | -1.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.44% | 3.37% | +0.07% |
Volatility
XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.L - Volatility Comparison
Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D (XEMD.L) has a higher volatility of 9.04% compared to Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C (XNAQ.L) at 3.90%. This indicates that XEMD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XNAQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XEMD.L | XNAQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.04% | 3.90% | +5.14% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.14% | 10.75% | +6.39% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.17% | 15.41% | +4.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.14% | 19.74% | +2.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.14% | 19.75% | +2.39% |
XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
XEMD.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than XNAQ.L's 0.20% 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
XEMD.L vs. XNAQ.L - Dividend Comparison
XEMD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%, while XNAQ.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XEMD.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D | 1.33% | 1.63% | 2.88% | 2.15% | 2.52% |
XNAQ.L Xtrackers Nasdaq 100 UCITS ETF 1C | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XEMD.L and XNAQ.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, XEMD.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XEMD.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for XNAQ.L.
XEMD.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while XNAQ.L is Nasdaq-100. XEMD.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while XNAQ.L tracks Russell 1000 Growth TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for XEMD.L and 0.20% for XNAQ.L.
Find the right allocation for XEMD.L and XNAQ.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