AFK vs. EMEQ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

AFK (VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF) and EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. AFK is passively managed, while EMEQ is actively managed. Over the past year, AFK returned 26.56% vs 110.88% for EMEQ. Their 0.52 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. AFK charges 0.78%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for EMEQ.

Performance

AFK vs. EMEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF (AFK) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFK achieves a -2.32% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 53.76% return.

AFK

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 0.08%
• 6M: -6.31%
• YTD: -2.32%
• 1Y: 26.56%
• 3Y*: 19.94%
• 5Y*: 6.08%
• 10Y*: 5.25%
• ALL TIME*: -0.03%

EMEQ

• 1D: 1.33%
• 1M: -8.23%
• 6M: 30.45%
• YTD: 53.76%
• 1Y: 110.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 65.06%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
AFK VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF	$3.06M	$2.15M	$2.08M
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$8.75M	$9.16M	$11.52M

AFK vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AFK VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF	-2.32%	74.71%	-1.78%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	53.76%	69.78%	-0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between AFK and EMEQ is 0.51, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.52

The correlation between AFK and EMEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.52 - a consistent structural relationship.

AFK vs. EMEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AFK	EMEQ
Basic Materials	34.5%	1.6%
Financial Services	33.3%	11.6%
Communication Services	11.3%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	7.8%	6.2%
Energy	6.9%	7.2%
Industrials	3.3%	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	2.7%
Healthcare	0.6%	1.0%
Real Estate	0.3%	-
Utilities	0.2%	0.9%
Technology	-	58.0%

Return for Risk

AFK vs. EMEQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

AFK

AFK Risk / Return Rank: 37
AFK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
AFK Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
AFK Omega Ratio Rank: 39
AFK Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
AFK Martin Ratio Rank: 32

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 91
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 90
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

AFK vs. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF (AFK) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). 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.

	AFK	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	2.69	-1.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.38	2.99	-1.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.43	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.34	4.13	-2.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.99	15.08	-12.09

AFK vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFK Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is lower than the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFK and EMEQ, 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

AFK vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFK drawdown since its inception was -62.46%, which is greater than EMEQ's maximum drawdown of -26.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFK and EMEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFK	EMEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.46%	-26.25%	-36.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.54%	-26.25%	+6.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.54%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.62%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-53.33%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.50%	-20.86%	+6.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.88%	-4.67%	-27.21%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.74%	7.18%	+1.56%

Volatility

AFK vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF (AFK) is 5.45%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 14.87%. This indicates that AFK experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFK	EMEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.45%	14.87%	-9.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.20%	37.54%	-14.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.08%	40.39%	-13.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.45%	34.15%	-11.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.14%	34.15%	-12.01%

AFK vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFK has a 0.78% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFK vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

AFK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.04%, less than EMEQ's 1.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AFK VanEck Vectors Africa Index ETF	1.04%	1.02%	0.00%	2.27%	3.59%	4.17%	3.91%	6.34%	1.71%	1.99%	2.67%	2.16%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.79%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFK and EMEQ in my portfolio?

AFK and EMEQ have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AFK or EMEQ?

EMEQ has higher volatility (14.87%) compared to AFK (5.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFK dropped -62.46% vs EMEQ's -26.25%.

Which ETF is better, AFK or EMEQ?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 110.88% vs 26.56% for AFK. On fees, AFK is cheaper at 0.78% per year. On volatility, AFK has been the lower-risk option at 5.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFK or EMEQ?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 110.88% return vs 26.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFK or EMEQ?

AFK is cheaper with a 0.78% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AFK or EMEQ?

EMEQ has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 1.04% for AFK.

What is the main difference between AFK and EMEQ?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.78% for AFK and 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.69 vs 0.97), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.