AGEM vs. QEMM

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

AGEM (abrdn Emerging Markets Dividend Active ETF) and QEMM (SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. AGEM is actively managed, while QEMM is passively managed. Over the past year, AGEM returned 45.32% vs 30.93% for QEMM. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. AGEM charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for QEMM.

Performance

AGEM vs. QEMM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Emerging Markets Dividend Active ETF (AGEM) and SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AGEM achieves a 24.99% return, which is significantly higher than QEMM's 19.15% return.

AGEM

• 1D: 0.77%
• 1M: -0.16%
• 6M: 14.22%
• YTD: 24.99%
• 1Y: 45.32%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 39.71%

QEMM

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: -0.89%
• 6M: 11.72%
• YTD: 19.15%
• 1Y: 30.93%
• 3Y*: 16.10%
• 5Y*: 7.53%
• 10Y*: 7.77%
• ALL TIME*: 5.36%

*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)
AGEM abrdn Emerging Markets Dividend Active ETF	$1.02M	$702.44K	$818.78K
QEMM SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF	$139.93K	$185.83K	$306.66K

AGEM vs. QEMM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AGEM abrdn Emerging Markets Dividend Active ETF	24.99%	29.73%
QEMM SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF	19.15%	18.80%

Correlation

The correlation between AGEM and QEMM is 0.91, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2025	0.88

The correlation between AGEM and QEMM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AGEM vs. QEMM — Risk / Return Rank

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

AGEM

AGEM Risk / Return Rank: 80
AGEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
AGEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
AGEM Omega Ratio Rank: 79
AGEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
AGEM Martin Ratio Rank: 79

QEMM

QEMM Risk / Return Rank: 72
QEMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
QEMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
QEMM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
QEMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
QEMM Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

AGEM vs. QEMM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Emerging Markets Dividend Active ETF (AGEM) and SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM). 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.

	AGEM	QEMM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.84	1.58	+0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	2.15	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.30	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.22	2.94	+0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.15	8.89	+1.27

AGEM vs. QEMM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AGEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is comparable to the QEMM Sharpe Ratio of 1.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AGEM and QEMM, 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

AGEM vs. QEMM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AGEM drawdown since its inception was -15.58%, smaller than the maximum QEMM drawdown of -36.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AGEM and QEMM.

Drawdown Indicators

	AGEM	QEMM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.58%	-36.89%	+21.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.92%	-10.40%	-3.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.03%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.12%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.03%	-5.61%	-1.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.64%	-10.56%	+7.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.41%	3.43%	+0.98%

Volatility

AGEM vs. QEMM - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Emerging Markets Dividend Active ETF (AGEM) has a higher volatility of 9.55% compared to SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM) at 6.14%. This indicates that AGEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QEMM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AGEM	QEMM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.55%	6.14%	+3.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.39%	17.61%	+4.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.33%	19.34%	+4.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.59%	15.79%	+7.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.59%	17.02%	+6.57%

AGEM vs. QEMM - Expense Ratio Comparison

AGEM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than QEMM's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

AGEM vs. QEMM - Dividend Comparison

AGEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.94%, less than QEMM's 4.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AGEM abrdn Emerging Markets Dividend Active ETF	1.94%	1.80%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QEMM SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF	4.53%	4.90%	5.17%	4.88%	4.07%	2.35%	2.48%	3.05%	2.86%	2.11%	2.03%	2.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AGEM and QEMM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, AGEM and QEMM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, AGEM or QEMM?

AGEM has higher volatility (9.55%) compared to QEMM (6.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AGEM dropped -15.58% vs QEMM's -36.89%.

Which ETF is better, AGEM or QEMM?

On 1-year performance, AGEM leads with 45.32% vs 30.93% for QEMM. On fees, QEMM is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, QEMM has been the lower-risk option at 6.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AGEM or QEMM?

Over the 1-year period, AGEM has performed better with a 45.32% return vs 30.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AGEM or QEMM?

QEMM is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for AGEM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AGEM or QEMM?

QEMM has the higher dividend yield at 4.53%, compared with 1.94% for AGEM.

What is the main difference between AGEM and QEMM?

They also come from different issuers: abrdn and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for AGEM and 0.30% for QEMM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AGEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.84 vs 1.58), 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.