BKEM vs. EMMF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

BKEM (BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and EMMF (WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. BKEM is passively managed, while EMMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BKEM returned 8.18%/yr vs 11.54%/yr for EMMF. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BKEM charges 0.11%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for EMMF.

Performance

BKEM vs. EMMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) and WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BKEM achieves a 32.06% return, which is significantly higher than EMMF's 28.05% return.

BKEM

• 1D: 0.31%
• 1M: 8.00%
• YTD: 32.06%
• 6M: 33.16%
• 1Y: 56.67%
• 3Y*: 24.82%
• 5Y*: 8.18%
• 10Y*: —

EMMF

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 6.90%
• YTD: 28.05%
• 6M: 29.04%
• 1Y: 46.70%
• 3Y*: 23.64%
• 5Y*: 11.54%
• 10Y*: —

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

BKEM vs. EMMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	32.06%	30.55%	7.53%	8.68%	-19.43%	-3.91%	48.44%
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	28.05%	21.22%	9.45%	20.59%	-13.47%	5.97%	32.72%

Correlation

The correlation between BKEM and EMMF 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 24, 2020	0.89

The correlation between BKEM and EMMF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

BKEM vs. EMMF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BKEM	EMMF
Technology	43.0%	32.9%
Financial Services	16.9%	8.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	14.0%
Industrials	8.1%	3.8%
Communication Services	5.8%	6.6%
Basic Materials	5.7%	1.9%
Energy	3.4%	2.1%
Healthcare	2.7%	0.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	4.4%
Utilities	2.0%	2.0%
Real Estate	1.1%	-

Return for Risk

BKEM vs. EMMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

BKEM

BKEM Risk / Return Rank: 83
BKEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
BKEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
BKEM Omega Ratio Rank: 84
BKEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
BKEM Martin Ratio Rank: 82

EMMF

EMMF Risk / Return Rank: 82
EMMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
EMMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
EMMF Omega Ratio Rank: 85
EMMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
EMMF Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

BKEM vs. EMMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) and WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF). 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.

	BKEM	EMMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.66	2.53	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.34	3.25	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.49	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.35	4.42	-0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.95	16.68	-0.73

BKEM vs. EMMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BKEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.66, which is comparable to the EMMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BKEM and EMMF, 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

BKEM vs. EMMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BKEM drawdown since its inception was -39.48%, which is greater than EMMF's maximum drawdown of -32.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BKEM and EMMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	BKEM	EMMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.48%	-32.57%	-6.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.11%	-10.62%	-2.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.38%	-16.02%	-2.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.20%	-24.02%	-12.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.18%	+1.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.90%	-7.43%	-8.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.56%	2.81%	+0.75%

Volatility

BKEM vs. EMMF - Volatility Comparison

BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) has a higher volatility of 10.81% compared to WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) at 9.97%. This indicates that BKEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BKEM	EMMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.81%	9.97%	+0.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.24%	16.81%	+2.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.46%	18.58%	+2.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.19%	14.86%	+4.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.43%	16.85%	+2.58%

BKEM vs. EMMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

BKEM has a 0.11% expense ratio, which is lower than EMMF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

BKEM vs. EMMF - Dividend Comparison

BKEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.43%, less than EMMF's 1.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.43%	2.25%	2.76%	3.02%	3.15%	2.22%	1.78%	0.00%	0.00%
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	1.85%	2.45%	1.30%	1.62%	3.48%	2.64%	1.93%	2.93%	0.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BKEM and EMMF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, BKEM and EMMF 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, BKEM or EMMF?

BKEM has higher volatility (10.81%) compared to EMMF (9.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BKEM dropped -39.48% vs EMMF's -32.57%.

Which ETF is better, BKEM or EMMF?

On 5-year performance, EMMF leads with 11.54% vs 8.18% for BKEM. On fees, BKEM is cheaper at 0.11% per year. On volatility, EMMF has been the lower-risk option at 9.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BKEM or EMMF?

Over the 5-year period, EMMF has performed better with a 11.54% return vs 8.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BKEM or EMMF?

BKEM is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for EMMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BKEM or EMMF?

EMMF has the higher dividend yield at 1.85%, compared with 1.43% for BKEM.

What is the main difference between BKEM and EMMF?

They also come from different issuers: BNY Mellon and WisdomTree. Their fees differ too: 0.11% for BKEM and 0.48% for EMMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BKEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.66 vs 2.53), 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.