XMAS.L vs. XMME.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XMAS.L (Xtrackers MSCI EM Asia ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C) and XMME.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XMAS.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while XMME.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XMAS.L returned 9.51%/yr vs 8.46%/yr for XMME.L. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMAS.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for XMME.L.

Performance

XMAS.L vs. XMME.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI EM Asia ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMAS.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

XMAS.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, XMAS.L achieves a 32.61% return, which is significantly higher than XMME.L's 27.00% return.

XMAS.L

• 1D: -1.96%
• 1M: 9.32%
• YTD: 32.61%
• 6M: 35.11%
• 1Y: 63.40%
• 3Y*: 24.06%
• 5Y*: 9.51%
• 10Y*: 12.25%

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)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XMAS.L Xtrackers MSCI EM Asia ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C	32.61%	25.07%	17.38%	-2.13%	-11.07%	-5.15%	22.90%	14.01%	-10.84%	11.85%
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 XMAS.L and XMME.L is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.72
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2017	0.64

Over the past year, XMAS.L and XMME.L have become more correlated (0.92) than their long-term average of 0.64, meaning their price movements have been converging.

XMAS.L vs. XMME.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMAS.L	XMME.L
Technology	38.0%	36.9%
Industrials	17.2%	7.4%
Healthcare	14.3%	2.9%
Communication Services	9.7%	7.0%
Financial Services	8.6%	19.5%
Consumer Cyclical	6.4%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	3.0%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.1%
Utilities	0.4%	2.1%
Basic Materials	0.2%	6.5%
Energy	0.0%	4.1%

Return for Risk

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

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

XMAS.L

XMAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 91
XMAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
XMAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
XMAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 92
XMAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
XMAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 87

XMME.L

XMME.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
XMME.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
XMME.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
XMME.L Omega Ratio Rank: 81
XMME.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
XMME.L Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI EM Asia ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMAS.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.

	XMAS.L	XMME.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.37	2.91	+0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.27	3.74	+0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.60	1.53	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.42	4.94	+0.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.46	16.72	+1.74
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current XMAS.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.37, which is comparable to the XMME.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMAS.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XMAS.L	XMME.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.37	2.91	+0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68	0.50	+0.18
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	0.44	-0.02

Drawdowns

XMAS.L vs. XMME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMAS.L drawdown since its inception was -55.27%, which is greater than XMME.L's maximum drawdown of -27.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMAS.L and XMME.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMAS.L	XMME.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-55.27%	-27.98%	-27.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.65%	-10.80%	-0.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.75%	-15.74%	-2.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.81%	-24.54%	-4.27%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.23%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.73%	-2.44%	-0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.62%	-10.03%	-1.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.42%	3.20%	+0.22%

Volatility

XMAS.L vs. XMME.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI EM Asia ESG Screened Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMAS.L) has a higher volatility of 8.50% compared to Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L) at 7.88%. This indicates that XMAS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMME.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMAS.L	XMME.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.50%	7.88%	+0.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.87%	15.86%	+0.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.77%	18.38%	+0.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.27%	17.04%	+5.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.61%	18.93%	+3.68%

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

XMAS.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than XMME.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMAS.L vs. XMME.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMAS.L and XMME.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, XMAS.L and XMME.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, XMAS.L or XMME.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMAS.L or XMME.L?

XMME.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for XMAS.L.

What is the main difference between XMAS.L and XMME.L?

XMAS.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while XMME.L is Emerging Markets Equities. XMAS.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD, while XMME.L tracks MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for XMAS.L and 0.18% for XMME.L.