PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BBAX vs. EEMV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BBAX vs. EEMV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan BetaBuilders Developed Asia ex-Japan ETF (BBAX) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BBAX achieves a 10.52% return, which is significantly lower than EEMV's 17.74% return.


BBAX

1D
-1.00%
1M
1.03%
YTD
10.52%
6M
12.09%
1Y
20.17%
3Y*
13.06%
5Y*
5.02%
10Y*

EEMV

1D
-1.04%
1M
7.00%
YTD
17.74%
6M
18.90%
1Y
26.57%
3Y*
14.14%
5Y*
5.59%
10Y*
6.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BBAX vs. EEMV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
BBAX
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Developed Asia ex-Japan ETF
10.52%20.21%2.50%5.60%-4.80%5.53%8.02%18.66%-9.65%
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
17.74%13.45%7.98%7.75%-13.94%5.05%6.90%7.83%-4.66%

Correlation

The correlation between BBAX and EEMV is 0.73, 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

0.73

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.76

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.77

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2018

0.78

The correlation between BBAX and EEMV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

BBAX vs. EEMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
BBAX
EEMV

Financial Services

45.9%
17.7%

Basic Materials

16.0%
3.1%

Real Estate

8.4%
0.5%

Industrials

7.9%
6.7%

Consumer Cyclical

4.9%
5.0%

Healthcare

4.5%
6.2%

Utilities

3.3%
4.6%

Consumer Defensive

3.1%
6.8%

Energy

2.9%
3.4%

Communication Services

2.8%
11.2%

Technology

0.3%
28.9%

Financial Services

BBAX
45.9%
EEMV
17.7%

Basic Materials

BBAX
16.0%
EEMV
3.1%

Real Estate

BBAX
8.4%
EEMV
0.5%

Industrials

BBAX
7.9%
EEMV
6.7%

Consumer Cyclical

BBAX
4.9%
EEMV
5.0%

Healthcare

BBAX
4.5%
EEMV
6.2%

Utilities

BBAX
3.3%
EEMV
4.6%

Consumer Defensive

BBAX
3.1%
EEMV
6.8%

Energy

BBAX
2.9%
EEMV
3.4%

Communication Services

BBAX
2.8%
EEMV
11.2%

Technology

BBAX
0.3%
EEMV
28.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

BBAX vs. EEMV — Risk / Return Rank

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

BBAX
BBAX Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
BBAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3939
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BBAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
BBAX Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
BBAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
BBAX Martin Ratio Rank: 4545
Martin Ratio Rank

EEMV
EEMV Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
EEMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMV Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMV Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

BBAX vs. EEMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan BetaBuilders Developed Asia ex-Japan ETF (BBAX) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV). 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.


BBAXEEMVDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.41

2.04

-0.63

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.00

2.89

-0.89

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.40

-0.15

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.25

2.89

-0.65

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

7.46

10.79

-3.33

BBAX vs. EEMV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BBAX Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the EEMV Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BBAX and EEMV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


BBAXEEMVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.41

2.04

-0.63

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.29

0.47

-0.18

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.35

0.39

-0.05

Drawdowns

BBAX vs. EEMV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBAX drawdown since its inception was -39.64%, which is greater than EEMV's maximum drawdown of -31.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBAX and EEMV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BBAXEEMVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.64%

-31.56%

-8.08%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.01%

-9.22%

+0.21%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.12%

-12.47%

-7.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.33%

-21.90%

-2.43%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.16%

-1.08%

-2.08%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.22%

-7.97%

+0.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.71%

2.47%

+0.24%

Volatility

BBAX vs. EEMV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for JPMorgan BetaBuilders Developed Asia ex-Japan ETF (BBAX) is 4.65%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) has a volatility of 5.78%. This indicates that BBAX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BBAXEEMVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.65%

5.78%

-1.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.79%

11.71%

+0.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.34%

13.06%

+1.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.28%

11.85%

+5.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.68%

13.86%

+5.82%

BBAX vs. EEMV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BBAX has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMV's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

BBAX vs. EEMV - Dividend Comparison

BBAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.58%, more than EEMV's 2.25% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BBAX
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Developed Asia ex-Japan ETF
3.58%3.86%4.13%4.17%5.06%5.47%2.57%4.07%1.36%0.00%0.00%0.00%
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
2.25%2.65%3.50%2.75%1.93%2.14%2.45%2.63%2.46%2.34%2.79%2.55%

Frequently Asked Questions


BBAX and EEMV have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EEMV has higher volatility (5.78%) compared to BBAX (4.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BBAX dropped -39.64% vs EEMV's -31.56%.

On 5-year performance, EEMV leads with 5.59% vs 5.02% for BBAX. On fees, BBAX is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, BBAX has been the lower-risk option at 4.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, EEMV has performed better with a 5.59% return vs 5.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BBAX is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for EEMV.

BBAX has the higher dividend yield at 3.58%, compared with 2.25% for EEMV.

BBAX tracks Morningstar Developed Asia Pacific ex-Japan Target Market Exposure Index, while EEMV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for BBAX and 0.25% for EEMV.

EEMV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.41), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BBAX and EEMV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer