PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI EM Latin America ESG Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMLA.L) and iShares BIC 50 UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (DBRC.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

XMLA.L is traded in GBp, while DBRC.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the DBRC.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMLA.L achieves a 11.19% return, which is significantly higher than DBRC.L's -10.22% return. Over the past 10 years, XMLA.L has outperformed DBRC.L with an annualized return of 4.01%, while DBRC.L has yielded a comparatively lower 2.08% annualized return.


XMLA.L

1D
-1.16%
1M
-0.65%
6M
6.25%
YTD
11.19%
1Y
33.34%
3Y*
8.45%
5Y*
5.77%
10Y*
4.01%

DBRC.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-0.96%
6M
-14.52%
YTD
-10.22%
1Y
-5.78%
3Y*
6.21%
5Y*
-6.59%
10Y*
2.08%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XMLA.L
Xtrackers MSCI EM Latin America ESG Swap UCITS ETF 1C
11.19%47.26%-28.14%19.29%15.56%-17.92%-16.50%12.08%1.68%8.06%
DBRC.L
iShares BIC 50 UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
-10.22%20.41%15.79%-12.21%-20.51%-23.21%16.51%17.18%-2.97%24.40%

Correlation

The correlation between XMLA.L and DBRC.L is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.38

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

0.37

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

0.38

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 2, 2008

0.59

Over the past year, the correlation between XMLA.L and DBRC.L has dropped to 0.38 - well below their long-term average of 0.59, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

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

XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMLA.L
XMLA.L Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
XMLA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMLA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6767
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMLA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
XMLA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMLA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
Martin Ratio Rank

DBRC.L
DBRC.L Risk / Return Rank: 77
Overall Rank
DBRC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DBRC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
Sortino Ratio Rank
DBRC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 77
Omega Ratio Rank
DBRC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
Calmar Ratio Rank
DBRC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 77
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.

XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI EM Latin America ESG Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMLA.L) and iShares BIC 50 UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (DBRC.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.

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.


XMLA.LDBRC.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.73

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

0.97

+0.34

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.34

-0.21

+2.56

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.56

-0.47

+7.03

XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMLA.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.78, which is higher than the DBRC.L Sharpe Ratio of -0.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMLA.L and DBRC.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...

Drawdowns

XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMLA.L drawdown since its inception was -75.32%, which is greater than DBRC.L's maximum drawdown of -64.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMLA.L and DBRC.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XMLA.LDBRC.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-75.32%

-64.12%

-11.20%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.16%

-24.76%

+10.60%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.38%

-24.76%

-3.62%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-30.25%

-49.88%

+19.63%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-49.07%

-59.33%

+10.26%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-40.52%

-42.31%

+1.79%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-53.04%

-22.17%

-30.87%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.07%

11.18%

-6.11%

Volatility

XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI EM Latin America ESG Swap UCITS ETF 1C (XMLA.L) is 4.84%, while iShares BIC 50 UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (DBRC.L) has a volatility of 5.38%. This indicates that XMLA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DBRC.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XMLA.LDBRC.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.84%

5.38%

-0.54%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.34%

14.19%

+1.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.60%

19.41%

-0.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.28%

29.11%

-7.83%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.02%

25.89%

-0.87%

XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMLA.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than DBRC.L's 0.74% expense ratio.


Dividends

XMLA.L vs. DBRC.L - Dividend Comparison

XMLA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DBRC.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.60%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
DBRC.L
iShares BIC 50 UCITS ETF USD (Dist)
1.60%1.74%2.81%2.60%3.58%1.58%1.43%2.02%2.96%1.94%1.89%2.68%
XMLA.L
Xtrackers MSCI EM Latin America ESG Swap 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


XMLA.L and DBRC.L have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XMLA.L is cheaper at 0.65% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMLA.L is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for DBRC.L.

XMLA.L is categorized as Latin America Equities, while DBRC.L is Emerging Markets Equities. XMLA.L tracks MSCI EM Latin America NR USD, while DBRC.L tracks FTSE BIC 50 Net of Tax Index. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for XMLA.L and 0.74% for DBRC.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMLA.L and DBRC.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