XRH0.L vs. XMME.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XRH0.L (Xtrackers Physical Rhodium ETC) and XMME.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C) are both exchange-traded funds - XRH0.L is a Metals fund tracking the Rhodium, 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, XRH0.L returned -13.58%/yr vs 7.30%/yr for XMME.L. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XRH0.L charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for XMME.L.

Performance

XRH0.L vs. XMME.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers Physical Rhodium ETC (XRH0.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XRH0.L achieves a -15.28% return, which is significantly lower than XMME.L's 26.48% return.

XRH0.L

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: -3.00%
• YTD: -15.28%
• 6M: 10.23%
• 1Y: 73.21%
• 3Y*: 18.90%
• 5Y*: -13.58%
• 10Y*: 29.93%

XMME.L

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: 5.18%
• YTD: 26.48%
• 6M: 28.66%
• 1Y: 52.12%
• 3Y*: 24.14%
• 5Y*: 7.30%
• 10Y*: —

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

XRH0.L vs. XMME.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XRH0.L Xtrackers Physical Rhodium ETC	-15.28%	205.23%	-14.69%	-60.81%	-4.46%	-15.51%	183.21%	132.83%	46.39%	70.15%
XMME.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C	26.48%	33.78%	7.37%	9.61%	-20.77%	-2.81%	18.46%	17.19%	-14.47%	16.38%

Correlation

The correlation between XRH0.L and XMME.L is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.07
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2017	0.09

The correlation between XRH0.L and XMME.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (3 years) to 0.21 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

XRH0.L vs. XMME.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XRH0.L

XRH0.L Risk / Return Rank: 34
XRH0.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
XRH0.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
XRH0.L Omega Ratio Rank: 36
XRH0.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
XRH0.L Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

XRH0.L vs. XMME.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Physical Rhodium ETC (XRH0.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.

	XRH0.L	XMME.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.03	2.64	-1.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.83	3.50	-1.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.48	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.12	4.00	-1.88
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.10	14.53	-10.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XRH0.L vs. XMME.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XRH0.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.03, which is lower than the XMME.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XRH0.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

	XRH0.L	XMME.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.03	2.64	-1.61
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.21	0.39	-0.60
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.47	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.20	0.44	-0.24

Drawdowns

XRH0.L vs. XMME.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XRH0.L drawdown since its inception was -85.90%, which is greater than XMME.L's maximum drawdown of -40.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XRH0.L and XMME.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XRH0.L	XMME.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-85.90%	-40.28%	-45.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-34.33%	-12.95%	-21.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-46.87%	-17.04%	-29.83%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-82.47%	-37.56%	-44.91%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-85.90%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-61.74%	-2.78%	-58.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-51.31%	-15.45%	-35.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	17.81%	3.58%	+14.23%

Volatility

XRH0.L vs. XMME.L - Volatility Comparison

Xtrackers Physical Rhodium ETC (XRH0.L) has a higher volatility of 12.10% compared to Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1C (XMME.L) at 8.48%. This indicates that XRH0.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

	XRH0.L	XMME.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.10%	8.48%	+3.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	52.72%	17.03%	+35.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	71.00%	19.71%	+51.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	64.08%	18.80%	+45.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	64.25%	19.92%	+44.33%

XRH0.L vs. XMME.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XRH0.L has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than XMME.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

XRH0.L vs. XMME.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XRH0.L nor XMME.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XRH0.L and XMME.L in my portfolio?

XRH0.L and XMME.L have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XRH0.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, XRH0.L or XMME.L?

XMME.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for XRH0.L.

What is the main difference between XRH0.L and XMME.L?

XRH0.L is categorized as Metals, while XMME.L is Emerging Markets Equities. XRH0.L tracks Rhodium, while XMME.L tracks MSCI Total Return Net Emerging Markets Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for XRH0.L and 0.18% for XMME.L.