BKF vs. EMEQ

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BKF (iShares MSCI BRIC ETF) and EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. BKF is passively managed, while EMEQ is actively managed. Over the past year, BKF returned 2.20% vs 113.64% for EMEQ. Their 0.64 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BKF charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for EMEQ.

Performance

BKF vs. EMEQ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BKF achieves a -5.54% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 55.77% 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%

EMEQ

• 1D: 1.31%
• 1M: -7.03%
• 6M: 33.20%
• YTD: 55.77%
• 1Y: 113.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 65.83%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BKF iShares MSCI BRIC ETF	$152.87K	$247.53K	$560.11K
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$8.80M	$8.80M	$11.41M

BKF vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
BKF iShares MSCI BRIC ETF	-5.54%	22.30%	2.86%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	55.77%	69.78%	-0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between BKF and EMEQ is 0.61, 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.	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.64

The correlation between BKF and EMEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

BKF vs. EMEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BKF	EMEQ
Financial Services	25.2%	11.6%
Consumer Cyclical	17.8%	6.2%
Communication Services	12.1%	5.5%
Technology	9.0%	58.0%
Industrials	7.7%	6.2%
Basic Materials	7.4%	1.6%
Energy	6.5%	7.2%
Healthcare	5.3%	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.0%	2.7%
Utilities	3.5%	0.9%
Real Estate	1.3%	-

Return for Risk

BKF vs. EMEQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BKF

BKF Risk / Return Rank: 13
BKF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
BKF Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
BKF Omega Ratio Rank: 13
BKF Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
BKF Martin Ratio Rank: 13

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 92
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 91
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI BRIC ETF (BKF) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). 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.

	BKF	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.14	2.83	-2.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.31	3.10	-2.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.44	-0.41
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.14	4.35	-4.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.30	15.65	-15.35

BKF vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BKF Sharpe Ratio is 0.14, which is lower than the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BKF and EMEQ, 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

BKF vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BKF drawdown since its inception was -70.29%, which is greater than EMEQ's maximum drawdown of -26.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BKF and EMEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	BKF	EMEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-70.29%	-26.25%	-44.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.45%	-26.25%	+10.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.60%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.90%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-49.20%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.50%	-19.83%	-3.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.09%	-4.70%	-23.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.31%	7.29%	+0.02%

Volatility

BKF vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI BRIC ETF (BKF) is 3.78%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 14.69%. This indicates that BKF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BKF	EMEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.78%	14.69%	-10.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.65%	37.55%	-24.90%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.02%	40.45%	-24.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.33%	34.13%	-12.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.68%	34.13%	-12.45%

BKF vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

BKF has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

BKF vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

BKF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, less than EMEQ's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.77%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BKF and EMEQ in my portfolio?

BKF and EMEQ have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BKF or EMEQ?

EMEQ has higher volatility (14.69%) compared to BKF (3.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BKF dropped -70.29% vs EMEQ's -26.25%.

Which ETF is better, BKF or EMEQ?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 113.64% vs 2.20% for BKF. On fees, BKF is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, BKF has been the lower-risk option at 3.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BKF or EMEQ?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 113.64% return vs 2.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BKF or EMEQ?

BKF is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BKF or EMEQ?

EMEQ has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 1.54% for BKF.

What is the main difference between BKF and EMEQ?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for BKF and 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 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.