XMMS.L vs. EMV.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XMMS.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C) and EMV.L (iShares Edge MSCI EM Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, from Xtrackers and iShares respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XMMS.L returned 8.45%/yr vs 6.63%/yr for EMV.L. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XMMS.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for EMV.L.

Performance

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMMS.L) and iShares Edge MSCI EM Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF (EMV.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMMS.L achieves a 26.72% return, which is significantly higher than EMV.L's 17.59% return.

XMMS.L

• 1D: -1.59%
• 1M: 6.34%
• YTD: 26.72%
• 6M: 27.92%
• 1Y: 53.72%
• 3Y*: 20.94%
• 5Y*: 8.45%
• 10Y*: —

EMV.L

• 1D: -1.01%
• 1M: 5.53%
• YTD: 17.59%
• 6M: 17.45%
• 1Y: 26.13%
• 3Y*: 11.29%
• 5Y*: 6.63%
• 10Y*: 7.24%

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

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
XMMS.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C	26.72%	24.71%	9.13%	2.81%	-10.67%	-1.61%	13.55%	14.48%	-8.71%
EMV.L iShares Edge MSCI EM Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF	17.59%	5.04%	10.84%	1.45%	-4.20%	5.93%	4.08%	3.48%	-1.24%

Correlation

The correlation between XMMS.L and EMV.L is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 25, 2018	0.83

The correlation between XMMS.L and EMV.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMMS.L	EMV.L
Technology	36.9%	32.4%
Financial Services	19.5%	18.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	6.7%
Industrials	7.4%	6.2%
Communication Services	7.0%	11.0%
Basic Materials	6.5%	2.9%
Energy	4.1%	3.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	6.9%
Healthcare	2.9%	6.1%
Utilities	2.1%	4.7%
Real Estate	1.1%	0.6%

Return for Risk

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMMS.L

XMMS.L Risk / Return Rank: 88
XMMS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
XMMS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
XMMS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 91
XMMS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
XMMS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 84

EMV.L

EMV.L Risk / Return Rank: 69
EMV.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
EMV.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
EMV.L Omega Ratio Rank: 74
EMV.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
EMV.L 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.

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMMS.L) and iShares Edge MSCI EM Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF (EMV.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.

	XMMS.L	EMV.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.17	2.29	+0.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.07	3.17	+0.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.43	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.84	3.28	+1.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.09	11.15	+5.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMMS.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.17, which is higher than the EMV.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMMS.L and EMV.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

	XMMS.L	EMV.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.17	2.29	+0.88
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	0.61	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.54	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.41	+0.04

Drawdowns

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMMS.L drawdown since its inception was -27.76%, roughly equal to the maximum EMV.L drawdown of -28.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMMS.L and EMV.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMMS.L	EMV.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.76%	-28.68%	+0.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.04%	-7.93%	-3.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.26%	-11.19%	-4.07%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.32%	-11.19%	-13.13%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-22.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.42%	-1.54%	-0.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.00%	-5.90%	-4.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.13%	2.34%	+0.79%

Volatility

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMMS.L) has a higher volatility of 7.37% compared to iShares Edge MSCI EM Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF (EMV.L) at 4.60%. This indicates that XMMS.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMV.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMMS.L	EMV.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.37%	4.60%	+2.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.36%	9.74%	+4.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.90%	11.37%	+5.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.56%	10.94%	+5.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.84%	13.28%	+5.56%

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMMS.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is lower than EMV.L's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMMS.L vs. EMV.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMMS.L nor EMV.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMMS.L and EMV.L in my portfolio?

XMMS.L and EMV.L have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XMMS.L or EMV.L?

On fees, XMMS.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, XMMS.L or EMV.L?

XMMS.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for EMV.L.

What is the main difference between XMMS.L and EMV.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for XMMS.L and 0.40% for EMV.L.