BCEMX vs. GLLSX

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

BCEMX (Boston Common ESG Impact Emerging Markets Fund) and GLLSX (abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Over the past 3 years, BCEMX returned 18.98%/yr vs 23.56%/yr for GLLSX. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BCEMX charges 0.99%/yr vs 1.23%/yr for GLLSX.

Performance

BCEMX vs. GLLSX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Boston Common ESG Impact Emerging Markets Fund (BCEMX) and abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCEMX achieves a 15.78% return, which is significantly lower than GLLSX's 34.08% return.

BCEMX

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -5.40%
• 6M: 9.13%
• YTD: 15.78%
• 1Y: 36.34%
• 3Y*: 18.98%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GLLSX

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: -6.22%
• 6M: 25.28%
• YTD: 34.08%
• 1Y: 58.82%
• 3Y*: 23.56%
• 5Y*: 15.50%
• 10Y*: 13.59%

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

BCEMX vs. GLLSX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BCEMX Boston Common ESG Impact Emerging Markets Fund	15.78%	37.06%	8.63%	6.39%	-17.32%	1.08%
GLLSX abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	34.08%	34.81%	0.73%	21.35%	-23.04%	17.06%

Correlation

The correlation between BCEMX and GLLSX is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2021	0.85

The correlation between BCEMX and GLLSX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

BCEMX vs. GLLSX — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCEMX

BCEMX Risk / Return Rank: 53
BCEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
BCEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
BCEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 53
BCEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BCEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 55

GLLSX

GLLSX Risk / Return Rank: 84
GLLSX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
GLLSX Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
GLLSX Omega Ratio Rank: 82
GLLSX Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
GLLSX Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

BCEMX vs. GLLSX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Boston Common ESG Impact Emerging Markets Fund (BCEMX) and abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX). 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.

	BCEMX	GLLSX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.64	2.25	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	2.71	-0.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.42	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.64	4.17	-1.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.12	14.02	-4.90

BCEMX vs. GLLSX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCEMX Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is comparable to the GLLSX Sharpe Ratio of 2.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCEMX and GLLSX, 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

BCEMX vs. GLLSX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCEMX drawdown since its inception was -31.06%, roughly equal to the maximum GLLSX drawdown of -32.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCEMX and GLLSX.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCEMX	GLLSX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.06%	-32.59%	+1.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.85%	-14.39%	+0.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.11%	-20.95%	+1.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.02%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.44%	-10.13%	+1.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.18%	-7.90%	-3.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.01%	4.26%	-0.25%

Volatility

BCEMX vs. GLLSX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Boston Common ESG Impact Emerging Markets Fund (BCEMX) is 10.79%, while abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX) has a volatility of 12.42%. This indicates that BCEMX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLLSX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCEMX	GLLSX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.79%	12.42%	-1.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.12%	24.95%	-4.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.36%	26.58%	-4.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.21%	19.45%	-0.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.21%	18.39%	+0.82%

BCEMX vs. GLLSX - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCEMX has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is lower than GLLSX's 1.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCEMX vs. GLLSX - Dividend Comparison

BCEMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.89%, more than GLLSX's 1.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BCEMX Boston Common ESG Impact Emerging Markets Fund	1.89%	2.18%	2.33%	2.15%	2.02%	0.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GLLSX abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	1.40%	1.88%	0.74%	0.77%	29.32%	22.85%	0.00%	3.38%	9.47%	8.40%	1.09%	0.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCEMX and GLLSX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, BCEMX and GLLSX 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, BCEMX or GLLSX?

GLLSX has higher volatility (12.42%) compared to BCEMX (10.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BCEMX dropped -31.06% vs GLLSX's -32.59%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLLSX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.25 vs 1.64), 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.