XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

XMTW.L (Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C) and EMAS.L (SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - XMTW.L tracks the MSCI Taiwan NR USD while EMAS.L tracks the MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XMTW.L returned 22.84%/yr vs 15.67%/yr for EMAS.L. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XMTW.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for EMAS.L.

Performance

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C (XMTW.L) and SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

XMTW.L is traded in GBp, while EMAS.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the EMAS.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMTW.L achieves a 69.61% return, which is significantly lower than EMAS.L's 81.22% return. Over the past 10 years, XMTW.L has outperformed EMAS.L with an annualized return of 22.84%, while EMAS.L has yielded a comparatively lower 15.67% annualized return.

XMTW.L

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 9.80%
• YTD: 69.61%
• 6M: 73.58%
• 1Y: 109.68%
• 3Y*: 42.41%
• 5Y*: 23.09%
• 10Y*: 22.84%

EMAS.L

• 1D: 38.71%
• 1M: 44.55%
• YTD: 81.22%
• 6M: 83.42%
• 1Y: 109.79%
• 3Y*: 35.88%
• 5Y*: 15.70%
• 10Y*: 15.67%

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

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XMTW.L Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C	69.61%	23.98%	25.99%	21.66%	-21.11%	28.96%	32.40%	29.87%	-3.20%	16.17%
EMAS.L SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF	81.22%	22.99%	12.86%	0.62%	-12.26%	-4.94%	23.72%	13.20%	-9.78%	29.84%

Correlation

The correlation between XMTW.L and EMAS.L is 0.76, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2011	0.79

The correlation between XMTW.L and EMAS.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XMTW.L	EMAS.L
Technology	78.9%	52.1%
Financial Services	11.8%	13.2%
Industrials	2.8%	6.5%
Basic Materials	2.4%	3.3%
Communication Services	1.5%	6.1%
Consumer Cyclical	1.2%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	2.1%
Healthcare	0.6%	2.8%
Energy	-	2.4%
Real Estate	-	0.6%
Utilities	-	1.3%

Return for Risk

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XMTW.L

XMTW.L Risk / Return Rank: 97
XMTW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
XMTW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
XMTW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 96
XMTW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
XMTW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 96

EMAS.L

EMAS.L Risk / Return Rank: 97
EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
EMAS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
EMAS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C (XMTW.L) and SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.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.

	XMTW.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.51	2.85	+1.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.06	7.46	-2.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.72	2.09	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	12.05	10.86	+1.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	31.90	35.46	-3.56

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMTW.L Sharpe Ratio is 4.51, which is higher than the EMAS.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMTW.L and EMAS.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.

Drawdowns

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMTW.L drawdown since its inception was -99.22%, which is greater than EMAS.L's maximum drawdown of -53.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMTW.L and EMAS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XMTW.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.22%	-53.67%	-45.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.05%	-11.14%	+2.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.76%	-25.14%	-3.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.18%	-29.16%	-1.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.18%	-34.79%	+4.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.86%	0.00%	-5.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.20%	-22.16%	-0.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.43%	3.42%	+0.01%

Volatility

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C (XMTW.L) is 10.63%, while SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF (EMAS.L) has a volatility of 33.13%. This indicates that XMTW.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMAS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XMTW.L	EMAS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.63%	33.13%	-22.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.19%	35.89%	-15.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.25%	42.41%	-18.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.89%	28.52%	-3.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.35%	24.30%	-1.95%

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMTW.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than EMAS.L's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMTW.L vs. EMAS.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XMTW.L nor EMAS.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XMTW.L and EMAS.L in my portfolio?

XMTW.L and EMAS.L have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XMTW.L or EMAS.L?

On fees, EMAS.L is cheaper at 0.55% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XMTW.L or EMAS.L?

EMAS.L is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for XMTW.L.

What is the main difference between XMTW.L and EMAS.L?

XMTW.L tracks MSCI Taiwan NR USD, while EMAS.L tracks MSCI AC Asia Ex Japan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for XMTW.L and 0.55% for EMAS.L.