CEFA vs. KEMX
CEFA (Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF) and KEMX (KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - CEFA tracks the S&P Developed ex-U.S. Catholic Values Index while KEMX tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEFA returned 6.64%/yr vs 13.52%/yr for KEMX. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for KEMX.
Performance
CEFA vs. KEMX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CEFA achieves a 7.81% return, which is significantly lower than KEMX's 42.26% return.
CEFA
- 1D
- -0.77%
- 1M
- 3.62%
- YTD
- 7.81%
- 6M
- 9.59%
- 1Y
- 20.44%
- 3Y*
- 15.15%
- 5Y*
- 6.64%
- 10Y*
- —
KEMX
- 1D
- -1.31%
- 1M
- 13.02%
- YTD
- 42.26%
- 6M
- 47.92%
- 1Y
- 79.97%
- 3Y*
- 29.66%
- 5Y*
- 13.52%
- 10Y*
- —
CEFA vs. KEMX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFA Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF | 7.81% | 26.46% | 5.03% | 17.40% | -16.66% | 7.97% | 21.61% |
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF | 42.26% | 38.28% | 0.36% | 20.57% | -19.35% | 10.55% | 37.02% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEFA and KEMX is 0.76, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.76 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.73 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.71 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2020 | 0.65 |
The correlation between CEFA and KEMX shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (all time) to 0.76 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
CEFA vs. KEMX - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CEFA
KEMX
Financial Services
Industrials
Technology
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Basic Materials
Energy
Communication Services
Utilities
Real Estate
Financial Services
CEFA
KEMX
Industrials
CEFA
KEMX
Technology
CEFA
KEMX
Healthcare
CEFA
KEMX
Consumer Cyclical
CEFA
KEMX
Consumer Defensive
CEFA
KEMX
Basic Materials
CEFA
KEMX
Energy
CEFA
KEMX
Communication Services
CEFA
KEMX
Utilities
CEFA
KEMX
Real Estate
CEFA
KEMX
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
CEFA vs. KEMX — Risk / Return Rank
CEFA
KEMX
CEFA vs. KEMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF (CEFA) and KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX). 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.
| CEFA | KEMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.25 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.37 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 1.62 | -0.38 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.78 | 5.24 | -3.46 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.54 | 20.86 | -14.32 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CEFA | KEMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.34 | 3.59 | -2.25 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.38 | 0.75 | -0.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.63 | 0.68 | -0.05 |
Drawdowns
CEFA vs. KEMX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEFA drawdown since its inception was -31.97%, smaller than the maximum KEMX drawdown of -38.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFA and KEMX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEFA | KEMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.97% | -38.80% | +6.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.54% | -15.36% | +3.82% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.45% | -19.62% | +4.17% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -31.97% | -30.85% | -1.12% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.47% | -1.31% | -0.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.05% | -8.86% | +1.81% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.13% | 3.85% | -0.72% |
Volatility
CEFA vs. KEMX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF (CEFA) is 5.01%, while KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX) has a volatility of 9.86%. This indicates that CEFA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KEMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEFA | KEMX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.01% | 9.86% | -4.85% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.77% | 19.90% | -7.13% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 15.33% | 22.40% | -7.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.61% | 18.21% | -0.60% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.21% | 20.94% | -3.73% |
CEFA vs. KEMX - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than KEMX's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
CEFA vs. KEMX - Dividend Comparison
CEFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.65%, more than KEMX's 2.31% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFA Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF | 2.65% | 2.86% | 3.26% | 2.35% | 2.35% | 3.49% | 0.84% | 0.00% |
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF | 2.31% | 3.28% | 3.39% | 2.00% | 4.10% | 4.79% | 1.69% | 2.77% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CEFA and KEMX have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
KEMX has higher volatility (9.86%) compared to CEFA (5.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEFA dropped -31.97% vs KEMX's -38.80%.
On 5-year performance, KEMX leads with 13.52% vs 6.64% for CEFA. On fees, KEMX is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, CEFA has been the lower-risk option at 5.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, KEMX has performed better with a 13.52% return vs 6.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
KEMX is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CEFA.
CEFA has the higher dividend yield at 2.65%, compared with 2.31% for KEMX.
CEFA tracks S&P Developed ex-U.S. Catholic Values Index, while KEMX tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. They also come from different issuers: Global X and CICC. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CEFA and 0.25% for KEMX.
KEMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.59 vs 1.34), 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.
Find the right allocation for CEFA and KEMX
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