CGIC vs. KEMX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGIC (Capital Group International Core Equity ETF) and KEMX (KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. CGIC is actively managed, while KEMX is passively managed. Over the past year, CGIC returned 30.79% vs 79.97% for KEMX. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGIC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for KEMX.

Performance

CGIC vs. KEMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) and KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CGIC achieves a 12.85% return, which is significantly lower than KEMX's 42.26% return.

CGIC

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 5.13%
• YTD: 12.85%
• 6M: 15.39%
• 1Y: 30.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

KEMX

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: 13.02%
• YTD: 42.26%
• 6M: 47.92%
• 1Y: 79.97%
• 3Y*: 29.66%
• 5Y*: 13.52%
• 10Y*: —

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

CGIC vs. KEMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGIC Capital Group International Core Equity ETF	12.85%	37.53%	-2.81%
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	42.26%	38.28%	-4.51%

Correlation

The correlation between CGIC and KEMX is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2024	0.81

The correlation between CGIC and KEMX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGIC vs. KEMX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGIC	KEMX
Financial Services	20.2%	20.7%
Technology	16.7%	41.2%
Industrials	13.9%	8.6%
Basic Materials	8.8%	8.2%
Consumer Defensive	8.1%	3.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.4%	5.4%
Communication Services	7.3%	3.2%
Energy	6.2%	4.8%
Healthcare	5.6%	1.7%
Utilities	4.1%	2.0%
Real Estate	1.8%	1.2%

Return for Risk

CGIC vs. KEMX — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGIC

CGIC Risk / Return Rank: 58
CGIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
CGIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CGIC Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CGIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
CGIC Martin Ratio Rank: 59

KEMX

KEMX Risk / Return Rank: 91
KEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
KEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
KEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 92
KEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
KEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

CGIC vs. KEMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) 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.

	CGIC	KEMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	3.59	-1.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	4.31	-1.48
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.62	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.74	5.24	-2.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.54	20.86	-10.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGIC vs. KEMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGIC Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is lower than the KEMX Sharpe Ratio of 3.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGIC and KEMX, 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

	CGIC	KEMX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	3.59	-1.53
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.75	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.48	0.68	+0.80

Drawdowns

CGIC vs. KEMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGIC drawdown since its inception was -13.10%, smaller than the maximum KEMX drawdown of -38.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGIC and KEMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGIC	KEMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.10%	-38.80%	+25.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.30%	-15.36%	+4.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.62%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.04%	-1.31%	+0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.54%	-8.86%	+6.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	3.85%	-0.92%

Volatility

CGIC vs. KEMX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) is 5.82%, while KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX) has a volatility of 9.86%. This indicates that CGIC 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.

Volatility by Period

	CGIC	KEMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.82%	9.86%	-4.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.82%	19.90%	-7.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.01%	22.40%	-7.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	18.21%	-2.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.14%	20.94%	-4.80%

CGIC vs. KEMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGIC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is higher than KEMX's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGIC vs. KEMX - Dividend Comparison

CGIC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.32%, less than KEMX's 2.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CGIC Capital Group International Core Equity ETF	1.32%	1.60%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both CGIC and KEMX in my portfolio?

CGIC and KEMX have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGIC or KEMX?

KEMX has higher volatility (9.86%) compared to CGIC (5.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGIC dropped -13.10% vs KEMX's -38.80%.

Which ETF is better, CGIC or KEMX?

On 1-year performance, KEMX leads with 79.97% vs 30.79% for CGIC. On fees, KEMX is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, CGIC has been the lower-risk option at 5.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGIC or KEMX?

Over the 1-year period, KEMX has performed better with a 79.97% return vs 30.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGIC or KEMX?

KEMX is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.54% for CGIC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CGIC or KEMX?

KEMX has the higher dividend yield at 2.31%, compared with 1.32% for CGIC.

What is the main difference between CGIC and KEMX?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and CICC. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for CGIC and 0.25% for KEMX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KEMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.59 vs 2.06), 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.