XMMS.L vs. EMIM.L
Compare and contrast key facts about Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMMS.L) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L).
XMMS.L and EMIM.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. XMMS.L is a passively managed fund by Xtrackers that tracks the performance of the MSCI EM NR USD. It was launched on Jun 21, 2017. EMIM.L is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI EM NR USD. It was launched on May 30, 2014. Both XMMS.L and EMIM.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: XMMS.L or EMIM.L.
Key characteristics
| XMMS.L | EMIM.L | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 4.88% | 4.97% |
| 1Y Return | 6.76% | 7.31% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | -1.37% | -0.32% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 2.41% | 3.56% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 0.55 | 0.62 |
| Daily Std Dev | 12.98% | 12.48% |
| Max Drawdown | -27.76% | -31.70% |
| Current Drawdown | -14.31% | -9.47% |
Correlation
The correlation between XMMS.L and EMIM.L is 0.99, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
XMMS.L vs. EMIM.L - Performance Comparison
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with XMMS.L having a 4.88% return and EMIM.L slightly higher at 4.97%. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
XMMS.L vs. EMIM.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
Both XMMS.L and EMIM.L have an expense ratio of 0.18%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
XMMS.L vs. EMIM.L - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMMS.L) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.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.
Dividends
XMMS.L vs. EMIM.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither XMMS.L nor EMIM.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Drawdowns
XMMS.L vs. EMIM.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XMMS.L drawdown since its inception was -27.76%, smaller than the maximum EMIM.L drawdown of -31.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMMS.L and EMIM.L. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
XMMS.L vs. EMIM.L - Volatility Comparison
Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMMS.L) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets IMI UCITS ETF (Acc) (EMIM.L) have volatilities of 4.09% and 4.10%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.