BILZ vs. EMDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BILZ (PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund) and EMDM (First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BILZ is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PIMCO, while EMDM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies Index - Benchmark TR Net. BILZ is actively managed, while EMDM is passively managed. Over the past year, BILZ returned 3.91% vs 91.32% for EMDM. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. BILZ charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for EMDM.

Performance

BILZ vs. EMDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund (BILZ) and First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BILZ achieves a 1.47% return, which is significantly lower than EMDM's 39.03% return.

BILZ

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.47%
• 6M: 1.76%
• 1Y: 3.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMDM

• 1D: -1.32%
• 1M: 11.04%
• YTD: 39.03%
• 6M: 45.21%
• 1Y: 91.32%
• 3Y*: 32.95%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BILZ vs. EMDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BILZ PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund	1.47%	4.21%	5.25%	2.33%
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	39.03%	59.68%	-4.93%	7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between BILZ and EMDM is -0.12, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2023	-0.07

Return for Risk

BILZ vs. EMDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

BILZ

BILZ Risk / Return Rank: 100
BILZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BILZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BILZ Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BILZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BILZ Martin Ratio Rank: 100

EMDM

EMDM Risk / Return Rank: 93
EMDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
EMDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
EMDM Omega Ratio Rank: 93
EMDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
EMDM Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

BILZ vs. EMDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund (BILZ) and First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM). 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.

	BILZ	EMDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	19.09	3.92	+15.16
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	125.25	4.56	+120.69
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	53.31	1.66	+51.65
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	198.55	5.87	+192.68
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2,000.92	24.30	+1,976.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BILZ vs. EMDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BILZ Sharpe Ratio is 19.09, which is higher than the EMDM Sharpe Ratio of 3.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BILZ and EMDM, 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

	BILZ	EMDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.09	3.92	+15.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	10.48	1.58	+8.90

Drawdowns

BILZ vs. EMDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BILZ drawdown since its inception was -0.52%, smaller than the maximum EMDM drawdown of -18.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BILZ and EMDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BILZ	EMDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.52%	-18.81%	+18.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.02%	-15.65%	+15.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.32%	+1.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.01%	-4.07%	+4.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.00%	3.77%	-3.77%

Volatility

BILZ vs. EMDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund (BILZ) is 0.07%, while First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM) has a volatility of 9.61%. This indicates that BILZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BILZ	EMDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.07%	9.61%	-9.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.14%	20.78%	-20.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21%	23.42%	-23.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	0.43%	19.79%	-19.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	0.43%	19.79%	-19.36%

BILZ vs. EMDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BILZ has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than EMDM's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

BILZ vs. EMDM - Dividend Comparison

BILZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.07%, more than EMDM's 2.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BILZ PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund	4.07%	4.19%	4.95%	2.23%
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	2.57%	3.57%	5.87%	2.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BILZ and EMDM in my portfolio?

BILZ and EMDM have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BILZ or EMDM?

EMDM has higher volatility (9.61%) compared to BILZ (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BILZ dropped -0.52% vs EMDM's -18.81%.

Which ETF is better, BILZ or EMDM?

On 1-year performance, EMDM leads with 91.32% vs 3.91% for BILZ. On fees, BILZ is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BILZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BILZ or EMDM?

Over the 1-year period, EMDM has performed better with a 91.32% return vs 3.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BILZ or EMDM?

BILZ is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMDM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BILZ or EMDM?

BILZ has the higher dividend yield at 4.07%, compared with 2.57% for EMDM.

What is the main difference between BILZ and EMDM?

BILZ is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while EMDM is Emerging Markets Diversified. They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for BILZ and 0.75% for EMDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BILZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.09 vs 3.92), 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.