BCEM vs. IEMG
BCEM (Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF) and IEMG (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. BCEM is actively managed, while IEMG is passively managed. Their 0.96 correlation means they have historically moved very closely together. BCEM charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for IEMG.
Performance
BCEM vs. IEMG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
BCEM
- 1D
- 0.57%
- 1M
- -5.36%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
IEMG
- 1D
- 0.39%
- 1M
- -4.86%
- 6M
- 7.40%
- YTD
- 15.99%
- 1Y
- 28.99%
- 3Y*
- 17.42%
- 5Y*
- 7.09%
- 10Y*
- 8.72%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.09%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $108.38K | $126.63K | $170.35K | |
| $922.85M | $1.12B | $1.08B |
BCEM vs. IEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
BCEM Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF | 3.19% |
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 5.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between BCEM and IEMG is 0.96 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 9, 2026 | 0.96 |
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
BCEM vs. IEMG — Risk / Return Rank
BCEM
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IEMG
BCEM vs. IEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF (BCEM) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). 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.
| BCEM | IEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.24 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.20 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 6.87 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BCEM vs. IEMG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BCEM drawdown since its inception was -12.06%, smaller than the maximum IEMG drawdown of -38.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCEM and IEMG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BCEM | IEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -12.06% | -38.71% | +26.65% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -13.21% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -17.21% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -33.61% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -38.71% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -10.92% | -10.06% | -0.86% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.88% | -12.90% | +9.02% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 4.24% | — |
Volatility
BCEM vs. IEMG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BCEM | IEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 7.80% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 21.27% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 32.58% | 23.26% | +9.32% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 32.58% | 19.18% | +13.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 32.58% | 20.26% | +12.32% |
BCEM vs. IEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison
BCEM has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than IEMG's 0.09% expense ratio.
Dividends
BCEM vs. IEMG - Dividend Comparison
BCEM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IEMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.32%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BCEM Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IEMG iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 2.32% | 2.75% | 3.20% | 2.89% | 2.71% | 3.06% | 1.87% | 3.15% | 2.76% | 2.35% | 2.28% | 2.53% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.96, BCEM and IEMG 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.
On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IEMG is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BCEM.
IEMG has the higher dividend yield at 2.32%, compared with 0.00% for BCEM.
They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCEM and 0.09% for IEMG.
Find the right allocation for BCEM and IEMG
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