BGEG vs. QAT
BGEG (Baillie Gifford Emerging Markets ETF) and QAT (iShares MSCI Qatar ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. BGEG is actively managed, while QAT is passively managed. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BGEG charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QAT.
Performance
BGEG vs. QAT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
BGEG
- 1D
- -1.66%
- 1M
- -6.98%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
QAT
- 1D
- -0.86%
- 1M
- -0.81%
- 6M
- -1.26%
- YTD
- -1.22%
- 1Y
- 0.98%
- 3Y*
- 4.82%
- 5Y*
- 3.22%
- 10Y*
- 3.93%
BGEG vs. QAT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
BGEG Baillie Gifford Emerging Markets ETF | -7.15% |
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF | -1.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between BGEG and QAT is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2026 | 0.35 |
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
BGEG vs. QAT — Risk / Return Rank
BGEG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
QAT
BGEG vs. QAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baillie Gifford Emerging Markets ETF (BGEG) and iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT). 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.
| BGEG | QAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.03 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.13 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 0.23 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BGEG vs. QAT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BGEG drawdown since its inception was -8.43%, smaller than the maximum QAT drawdown of -45.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGEG and QAT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BGEG | QAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -8.43% | -45.21% | +36.78% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -10.60% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -17.41% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -33.17% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -34.04% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.15% | -13.50% | +6.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.26% | -19.13% | +14.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 5.91% | — |
Volatility
BGEG vs. QAT - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BGEG | QAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 4.72% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 11.15% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 35.94% | 13.15% | +22.79% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.94% | 15.05% | +20.89% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 35.94% | 17.52% | +18.42% |
BGEG vs. QAT - Expense Ratio Comparison
BGEG has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than QAT's 0.59% expense ratio.
Dividends
BGEG vs. QAT - Dividend Comparison
BGEG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.73%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGEG Baillie Gifford Emerging Markets 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% |
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF | 4.73% | 3.51% | 5.90% | 3.92% | 4.78% | 2.33% | 2.63% | 3.57% | 4.63% | 4.10% | 3.51% | 4.49% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BGEG and QAT have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, QAT is cheaper at 0.59% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
QAT is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for BGEG.
QAT has the higher dividend yield at 4.73%, compared with 0.00% for BGEG.
They also come from different issuers: Baillie Gifford and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BGEG and 0.59% for QAT.
Find the right allocation for BGEG and QAT
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