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

Performance

XGSG.L vs. XMME.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers II Global Government Bond UCITS ETF 2D GBP Hedged (XGSG.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

XGSG.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, XGSG.L achieves a -1.67% return, which is significantly lower than XMME.L's 27.00% return.


XGSG.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-0.33%
YTD
-1.67%
6M
-1.46%
1Y
-1.24%
3Y*
-0.11%
5Y*
-3.22%
10Y*
-1.29%

XMME.L

1D
-1.55%
1M
6.15%
YTD
27.00%
6M
27.77%
1Y
53.60%
3Y*
21.03%
5Y*
8.46%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XGSG.L
Xtrackers II Global Government Bond UCITS ETF 2D GBP Hedged
-1.67%0.95%-1.45%3.09%-16.07%-4.09%4.20%4.93%0.08%0.75%
XMME.L
Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C
27.00%24.25%9.25%4.13%-11.35%-1.89%14.98%12.73%-9.39%11.95%

Correlation

The correlation between XGSG.L and XMME.L is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.17

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

0.08

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.01

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2017

-0.07

The correlation between XGSG.L and XMME.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.07 (all time) to 0.17 (1 year), 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

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

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

XGSG.L
XGSG.L Risk / Return Rank: 66
Overall Rank
XGSG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XGSG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
Sortino Ratio Rank
XGSG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 66
Omega Ratio Rank
XGSG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
Calmar Ratio Rank
XGSG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 55
Martin Ratio Rank

XMME.L
XMME.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
XMME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
XMME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers II Global Government Bond UCITS ETF 2D GBP Hedged (XGSG.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.


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

-3.15

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-4.04

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.96

1.53

-0.57

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.33

4.94

-5.27

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.85

16.72

-17.57

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

The current XGSG.L Sharpe Ratio is -0.25, which is lower than the XMME.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XGSG.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


XGSG.LXMME.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.25

2.91

-3.15

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.58

0.50

-1.08

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-0.28

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.11

0.44

-0.55

Drawdowns

XGSG.L vs. XMME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XGSG.L drawdown since its inception was -23.52%, smaller than the maximum XMME.L drawdown of -27.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XGSG.L and XMME.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XGSG.LXMME.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-23.52%

-27.98%

+4.46%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.73%

-10.80%

+7.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.86%

-15.74%

+10.88%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.36%

-24.54%

+4.18%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.52%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-20.27%

-2.44%

-17.83%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.29%

-10.03%

+1.74%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.46%

3.20%

-1.74%

Volatility

XGSG.L vs. XMME.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers II Global Government Bond UCITS ETF 2D GBP Hedged (XGSG.L) is 1.48%, while Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L) has a volatility of 7.88%. This indicates that XGSG.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


XGSG.LXMME.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.48%

7.88%

-6.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.92%

15.86%

-12.94%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

5.04%

18.38%

-13.34%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.52%

17.04%

-11.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

4.68%

18.93%

-14.25%

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

XGSG.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than XMME.L's 0.18% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

XGSG.L vs. XMME.L - Dividend Comparison

XGSG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.03%, while XMME.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
XGSG.L
Xtrackers II Global Government Bond UCITS ETF 2D GBP Hedged
0.03%0.03%0.03%0.02%0.03%0.02%0.01%0.01%0.01%0.01%0.01%0.01%
XMME.L
Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


XGSG.L and XMME.L have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

XMME.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XGSG.L.

XGSG.L is categorized as Global Bonds, while XMME.L is Emerging Markets Equities. XGSG.L tracks Bloomberg Global Aggregate TR Hdg GBP, while XMME.L tracks MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XGSG.L and 0.18% for XMME.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XGSG.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