BGEG vs. XCEM
BGEG (Baillie Gifford Emerging Markets ETF) and XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. BGEG is actively managed, while XCEM is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BGEG charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for XCEM.
Performance
BGEG vs. XCEM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
BGEG
- 1D
- -0.79%
- 1M
- -4.41%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
XCEM
- 1D
- -0.92%
- 1M
- -5.56%
- 6M
- 18.12%
- YTD
- 26.75%
- 1Y
- 44.27%
- 3Y*
- 21.08%
- 5Y*
- 10.74%
- 10Y*
- 10.99%
- ALL TIME*
- 11.60%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $72.52K | $141.03K | $341.75K | |
| $6.81M | $8.88M | $9.83M |
BGEG vs. XCEM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
BGEG Baillie Gifford Emerging Markets ETF | -9.38% |
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF | -9.51% |
Correlation
The correlation between BGEG and XCEM is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2026 | 0.92 |
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. XCEM — Risk / Return Rank
BGEG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
XCEM
BGEG vs. XCEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baillie Gifford Emerging Markets ETF (BGEG) and Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM). 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 | XCEM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.33 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.08 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 9.75 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BGEG vs. XCEM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BGEG drawdown since its inception was -11.84%, smaller than the maximum XCEM drawdown of -41.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGEG and XCEM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BGEG | XCEM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -11.84% | -41.24% | +29.40% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -14.46% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -18.92% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -29.57% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.24% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -9.38% | -11.54% | +2.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.82% | -8.57% | +2.75% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 4.56% | — |
Volatility
BGEG vs. XCEM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BGEG | XCEM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 8.79% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 23.99% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 35.72% | 25.60% | +10.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.72% | 18.92% | +16.80% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 35.72% | 20.01% | +15.71% |
BGEG vs. XCEM - Expense Ratio Comparison
BGEG has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than XCEM's 0.16% expense ratio.
Dividends
BGEG vs. XCEM - Dividend Comparison
BGEG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XCEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.57%.
| 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% |
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF | 2.57% | 3.25% | 2.76% | 1.22% | 2.42% | 1.94% | 1.63% | 2.11% | 2.70% | 9.56% | 1.24% | 2.63% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.92, BGEG and XCEM 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, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for BGEG.
XCEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.57%, compared with 0.00% for BGEG.
They also come from different issuers: Baillie Gifford and Ameriprise Financial. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for BGEG and 0.16% for XCEM.
Find the right allocation for BGEG and XCEM
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