XLUS.L vs. EEMA

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

XLUS.L (Invesco Utilities S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc) and EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XLUS.L is a Utilities Equities fund tracking the S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Utilities Index, while EEMA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XLUS.L returned 8.62%/yr vs 9.65%/yr for EEMA. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XLUS.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EEMA.

Performance

XLUS.L vs. EEMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Utilities S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLUS.L) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XLUS.L achieves a 7.65% return, which is significantly lower than EEMA's 20.77% return. Over the past 10 years, XLUS.L has underperformed EEMA with an annualized return of 8.62%, while EEMA has yielded a comparatively higher 9.65% annualized return.

XLUS.L

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 3.00%
• 6M: 7.59%
• YTD: 7.65%
• 1Y: 14.51%
• 3Y*: 13.85%
• 5Y*: 9.36%
• 10Y*: 8.62%

EEMA

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: -5.48%
• 6M: 14.96%
• YTD: 20.77%
• 1Y: 37.05%
• 3Y*: 20.34%
• 5Y*: 6.71%
• 10Y*: 9.65%

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

XLUS.L vs. EEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XLUS.L Invesco Utilities S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc	7.65%	15.68%	22.50%	-7.74%	1.91%	18.46%	-1.37%	25.26%	2.91%	10.83%
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	20.77%	33.27%	10.23%	6.57%	-21.49%	-4.22%	25.17%	18.60%	-15.76%	43.41%

Correlation

The correlation between XLUS.L and EEMA is 0.03, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.03
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.08
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2012	0.11

XLUS.L vs. EEMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XLUS.L	EEMA
Utilities	100.0%	1.7%
Basic Materials	-	4.4%
Communication Services	-	6.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.6%
Energy	-	2.8%
Financial Services	-	15.3%
Healthcare	-	3.5%
Industrials	-	8.4%
Real Estate	-	0.9%
Technology	-	43.4%

Return for Risk

XLUS.L vs. EEMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

XLUS.L

XLUS.L Risk / Return Rank: 31
XLUS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
XLUS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
XLUS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 29
XLUS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
XLUS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 28

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 61
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 62
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

XLUS.L vs. EEMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Utilities S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLUS.L) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). 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.

	XLUS.L	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.98	1.61	-0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.43	2.15	-0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.30	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.62	2.60	-0.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.20	8.86	-5.67

XLUS.L vs. EEMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XLUS.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.98, which is lower than the EEMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XLUS.L and EEMA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

XLUS.L vs. EEMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XLUS.L drawdown since its inception was -36.30%, smaller than the maximum EEMA drawdown of -44.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLUS.L and EEMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	XLUS.L	EEMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.30%	-44.18%	+7.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.92%	-14.30%	+5.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.43%	-20.23%	+1.80%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.24%	-38.31%	+12.07%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.30%	-44.18%	+7.88%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.39%	-6.82%	+3.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.68%	-13.90%	+8.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.53%	4.19%	+0.34%

Volatility

XLUS.L vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Utilities S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc (XLUS.L) is 4.23%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a volatility of 9.50%. This indicates that XLUS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XLUS.L	EEMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.23%	9.50%	-5.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.04%	20.70%	-8.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.78%	23.19%	-8.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.06%	20.99%	-3.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.12%	21.05%	-2.93%

XLUS.L vs. EEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

XLUS.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMA's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

XLUS.L vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison

XLUS.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.36%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.36%	1.48%	1.74%	2.02%	1.78%	2.19%	1.15%	1.86%	2.17%	1.74%	1.74%	2.44%
XLUS.L Invesco Utilities S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF Acc	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

Can I hold both XLUS.L and EEMA in my portfolio?

XLUS.L and EEMA have a correlation of 0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XLUS.L or EEMA?

On fees, XLUS.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XLUS.L or EEMA?

XLUS.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EEMA.

What is the main difference between XLUS.L and EEMA?

XLUS.L is categorized as Utilities Equities, while EEMA is Asia Pacific Equities. XLUS.L tracks S&P® Select Sector Capped 20% Utilities Index, while EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for XLUS.L and 0.50% for EEMA.