PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
BKF vs. EMDV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

BKF vs. EMDV

Last updated Aug 4, 2026
Documentation

BKF (iShares MSCI BRIC ETF) and EMDV (ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - BKF tracks the MSCI BRIC Index while EMDV tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Masters Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, BKF returned 4.35%/yr vs 1.83%/yr for EMDV. Their 0.80 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BKF charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for EMDV.

Performance

BKF vs. EMDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI BRIC ETF (BKF) and ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BKF achieves a -5.54% return, which is significantly lower than EMDV's 2.19% return. Over the past 10 years, BKF has outperformed EMDV with an annualized return of 4.35%, while EMDV has yielded a comparatively lower 1.83% annualized return.

BKF

1D
0.32%
1M
6.30%
6M
-8.32%
YTD
-5.54%
1Y
2.20%
3Y*
6.64%
5Y*
-1.78%
10Y*
4.35%
ALL TIME*
0.21%

EMDV

1D
0.66%
1M
4.99%
6M
0.40%
YTD
2.19%
1Y
6.81%
3Y*
2.30%
5Y*
-1.67%
10Y*
1.83%
ALL TIME*
4.08%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

BKF

iShares MSCI BRIC ETF
$152.87K$247.53K$560.11K

EMDV

ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF
$3.02K$6.25K$10.42K

BKF vs. EMDV - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
BKF
iShares MSCI BRIC ETF		-5.54%22.30%9.24%1.27%-21.78%-11.87%16.52%22.93%-13.80%41.80%
EMDV
ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF		2.19%11.90%0.06%-1.03%-18.19%1.11%-0.09%14.93%-7.52%26.98%

Correlation

The correlation between BKF and EMDV is 0.71, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.71

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.78

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.83

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2016

0.80

The correlation between BKF and EMDV shifts across timeframes, from 0.71 (1 year) to 0.83 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BKF vs. EMDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
BKF
EMDV

Financial Services

25.2%
24.0%

Consumer Cyclical

17.8%
6.7%

Communication Services

12.1%
5.8%

Technology

9.0%
22.8%

Industrials

7.7%
6.7%

Basic Materials

7.4%
2.5%

Energy

6.5%

-

Healthcare

5.3%
8.4%

Consumer Defensive

4.0%
14.4%

Utilities

3.5%
8.8%

Real Estate

1.3%

-

Financial Services

BKF
25.2%
EMDV
24.0%

Consumer Cyclical

BKF
17.8%
EMDV
6.7%

Communication Services

BKF
12.1%
EMDV
5.8%

Technology

BKF
9.0%
EMDV
22.8%

Industrials

BKF
7.7%
EMDV
6.7%

Basic Materials

BKF
7.4%
EMDV
2.5%

Energy

BKF
6.5%
EMDV

-

Healthcare

BKF
5.3%
EMDV
8.4%

Consumer Defensive

BKF
4.0%
EMDV
14.4%

Utilities

BKF
3.5%
EMDV
8.8%

Real Estate

BKF
1.3%
EMDV

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares MSCI BRIC ETF

ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF

Often compared with BKF:
BKF vs. VWOBKF vs. FPADXBKF vs. SPYBKF vs. VOOBKF vs. FSPSXBKF vs. VBBKF vs. PRMSX
Often compared with EMDV:
EMDV vs. CRBNEMDV vs. VWOEMDV vs. SCHDEMDV vs. BDVGEMDV vs. EMBEMDV vs. VGTEMDV vs. NOBL

Return for Risk

BKF vs. EMDV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
BKF
BKF Risk / Return Rank: 1313
Overall Rank
BKF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BKF Sortino Ratio Rank: 1313
Sortino Ratio Rank
BKF Omega Ratio Rank: 1313
Omega Ratio Rank
BKF Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
BKF Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank
EMDV
EMDV Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
EMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2424
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
EMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BKF vs. EMDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI BRIC ETF (BKF) and ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV). 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.

BKFEMDVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.14
0.59

-0.45

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.31
0.90

-0.60

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.11

-0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.14

0.94

-0.80

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.30

2.24

-1.94

BKF vs. EMDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BKF Sharpe Ratio is 0.14, which is lower than the EMDV Sharpe Ratio of 0.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BKF and EMDV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

BKF vs. EMDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BKF drawdown since its inception was -70.29%, which is greater than EMDV's maximum drawdown of -39.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BKF and EMDV.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

BKFEMDVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-70.29%

-39.20%

-31.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.45%

-7.24%

-8.21%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.60%

-20.71%

+2.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.90%

-33.37%

-7.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-49.20%

-39.20%

-10.00%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-23.50%

-13.94%

-9.56%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-28.09%

-13.59%

-14.50%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.31%

3.04%

+4.27%

Volatility

BKF vs. EMDV - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI BRIC ETF (BKF) has a higher volatility of 3.78% compared to ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV) at 3.09%. This indicates that BKF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

BKFEMDVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.78%

3.09%

+0.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.65%

9.92%

+2.73%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.02%

11.68%

+4.34%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.33%

15.42%

+5.91%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.68%

17.99%

+3.69%

BKF vs. EMDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

BKF has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than EMDV's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

BKF vs. EMDV - Dividend Comparison

BKF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, less than EMDV's 1.89% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BKF
iShares MSCI BRIC ETF		1.54%1.79%2.37%1.68%2.04%2.93%1.02%1.66%2.33%1.51%1.82%3.15%
EMDV
ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF		1.89%2.46%2.79%1.88%3.68%2.12%3.12%2.38%1.27%2.09%2.87%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

BKF and EMDV have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

BKF has higher volatility (3.78%) compared to EMDV (3.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BKF dropped -70.29% vs EMDV's -39.20%.

On 10-year performance, BKF leads with 4.35% vs 1.83% for EMDV. On fees, EMDV is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, EMDV has been the lower-risk option at 3.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, BKF has performed better with a 4.35% return vs 1.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EMDV is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for BKF.

EMDV has the higher dividend yield at 1.89%, compared with 1.54% for BKF.

BKF tracks MSCI BRIC Index, while EMDV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Masters Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for BKF and 0.60% for EMDV.

EMDV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.59 vs 0.14), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BKF and EMDV

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