BBEM vs. XCNY

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BBEM (JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and XCNY (SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds - BBEM tracks the Morningstar Emerging Markets Target Market Exposure Index - Benchmark TR Net while XCNY tracks the S&P Emerging ex-China BMI. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, BBEM returned 49.80% vs 37.17% for XCNY. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.15% expense ratio.

Performance

BBEM vs. XCNY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) and SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BBEM achieves a 25.45% return, which is significantly higher than XCNY's 19.69% return.

BBEM

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: 5.92%
• YTD: 25.45%
• 6M: 27.96%
• 1Y: 49.80%
• 3Y*: 22.47%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XCNY

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 4.01%
• YTD: 19.69%
• 6M: 22.46%
• 1Y: 37.17%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BBEM vs. XCNY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	25.45%	32.43%	-1.04%
XCNY SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	19.69%	20.42%	-3.51%

Correlation

The correlation between BBEM and XCNY is 0.88, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 6, 2024	0.84

The correlation between BBEM and XCNY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

BBEM vs. XCNY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BBEM	XCNY
Technology	36.5%	36.1%
Financial Services	19.0%	21.7%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	5.6%
Industrials	8.1%	7.7%
Communication Services	6.7%	3.5%
Basic Materials	6.2%	8.7%
Energy	4.2%	4.9%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	3.6%
Healthcare	2.8%	2.7%
Utilities	2.5%	3.3%
Real Estate	1.0%	2.3%

Return for Risk

BBEM vs. XCNY — Risk / Return Rank

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

BBEM

BBEM Risk / Return Rank: 79
BBEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
BBEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
BBEM Omega Ratio Rank: 80
BBEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
BBEM Martin Ratio Rank: 79

XCNY

XCNY Risk / Return Rank: 68
XCNY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
XCNY Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
XCNY Omega Ratio Rank: 70
XCNY Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
XCNY Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

BBEM vs. XCNY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) and SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY). 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.

	BBEM	XCNY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.56	2.25	+0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.42	3.12	+0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.41	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.81	3.15	+0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.02	12.10	+2.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BBEM vs. XCNY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BBEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.56, which is comparable to the XCNY Sharpe Ratio of 2.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BBEM and XCNY, 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

	BBEM	XCNY	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.56	2.25	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.29	1.18	+0.11

Drawdowns

BBEM vs. XCNY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BBEM drawdown since its inception was -17.42%, smaller than the maximum XCNY drawdown of -19.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BBEM and XCNY.

Drawdown Indicators

	BBEM	XCNY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.42%	-19.70%	+2.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.12%	-11.86%	-1.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.42%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.53%	-1.08%	-1.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.70%	-4.14%	+0.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.32%	3.08%	+0.24%

Volatility

BBEM vs. XCNY - Volatility Comparison

JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) has a higher volatility of 8.57% compared to SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY) at 6.51%. This indicates that BBEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XCNY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BBEM	XCNY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.57%	6.51%	+2.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.26%	14.46%	+2.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.54%	16.61%	+2.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.50%	17.73%	-0.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.50%	17.73%	-0.23%

BBEM vs. XCNY - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both BBEM and XCNY have an expense ratio of 0.15%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

BBEM vs. XCNY - Dividend Comparison

BBEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.65%, more than XCNY's 2.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	4.65%	5.86%	2.73%	1.94%
XCNY SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	2.24%	2.68%	1.07%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BBEM and XCNY in my portfolio?

BBEM and XCNY have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BBEM or XCNY?

BBEM has higher volatility (8.57%) compared to XCNY (6.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BBEM dropped -17.42% vs XCNY's -19.70%.

Which ETF is better, BBEM or XCNY?

On 1-year performance, BBEM leads with 49.80% vs 37.17% for XCNY. Both ETFs have the same 0.15% expense ratio. On volatility, XCNY has been the lower-risk option at 6.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BBEM or XCNY?

Over the 1-year period, BBEM has performed better with a 49.80% return vs 37.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BBEM or XCNY?

BBEM and XCNY have the same expense ratio: 0.15% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BBEM or XCNY?

BBEM has the higher dividend yield at 4.65%, compared with 2.24% for XCNY.

What is the main difference between BBEM and XCNY?

BBEM tracks Morningstar Emerging Markets Target Market Exposure Index - Benchmark TR Net, while XCNY tracks S&P Emerging ex-China BMI. They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and State Street.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BBEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 2.25), 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.