CGIE vs. KEMX

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CGIE (Capital Group International Equity ETF) and KEMX (KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. CGIE is actively managed, while KEMX is passively managed. Over the past year, CGIE returned 13.91% vs 75.91% for KEMX. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CGIE charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for KEMX.

Performance

CGIE vs. KEMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) 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, CGIE achieves a 5.63% return, which is significantly lower than KEMX's 40.51% return.

CGIE

• 1D: 0.96%
• 1M: 3.34%
• YTD: 5.63%
• 6M: 6.80%
• 1Y: 13.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

KEMX

• 1D: -1.23%
• 1M: 8.82%
• YTD: 40.51%
• 6M: 46.50%
• 1Y: 75.91%
• 3Y*: 29.24%
• 5Y*: 13.24%
• 10Y*: —

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

CGIE vs. KEMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CGIE Capital Group International Equity ETF	5.63%	28.11%	0.72%	11.14%
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	40.51%	38.28%	0.36%	13.20%

Correlation

The correlation between CGIE and KEMX is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.75

The correlation between CGIE and KEMX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGIE vs. KEMX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGIE	KEMX
Industrials	28.1%	8.6%
Financial Services	20.1%	20.7%
Technology	17.8%	41.2%
Healthcare	7.5%	1.7%
Consumer Defensive	7.0%	3.0%
Utilities	6.8%	2.0%
Basic Materials	4.1%	8.2%
Energy	3.8%	4.8%
Consumer Cyclical	2.7%	5.4%
Communication Services	2.2%	3.2%
Real Estate	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

CGIE vs. KEMX — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGIE

CGIE Risk / Return Rank: 26
CGIE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
CGIE Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
CGIE Omega Ratio Rank: 25
CGIE Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
CGIE Martin Ratio Rank: 30

KEMX

KEMX Risk / Return Rank: 90
KEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
KEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
KEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 91
KEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
KEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

CGIE vs. KEMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	CGIE	KEMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.87	3.40	-2.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.33	4.13	-2.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.59	-0.43
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.17	4.97	-3.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.37	19.78	-15.41
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGIE vs. KEMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGIE Sharpe Ratio is 0.87, which is lower than the KEMX Sharpe Ratio of 3.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGIE 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

	CGIE	KEMX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87	3.40	-2.53
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.73	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.09	0.67	+0.41

Drawdowns

CGIE vs. KEMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGIE drawdown since its inception was -13.82%, smaller than the maximum KEMX drawdown of -38.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGIE and KEMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGIE	KEMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.82%	-38.80%	+24.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.94%	-15.36%	+3.42%
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	-0.62%	-2.52%	+1.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.56%	-8.85%	+6.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.19%	3.85%	-0.66%

Volatility

CGIE vs. KEMX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group International Equity ETF (CGIE) is 5.22%, while KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX) has a volatility of 9.80%. This indicates that CGIE 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

	CGIE	KEMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.22%	9.80%	-4.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.58%	19.96%	-6.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.04%	22.44%	-6.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.52%	18.21%	-2.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.52%	20.94%	-5.42%

CGIE vs. KEMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CGIE vs. KEMX - Dividend Comparison

CGIE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.10%, less than KEMX's 2.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CGIE Capital Group International Equity ETF	1.10%	1.17%	1.27%	0.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	2.33%	3.28%	3.39%	2.00%	4.10%	4.79%	1.69%	2.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGIE and KEMX in my portfolio?

CGIE and KEMX have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGIE or KEMX?

KEMX has higher volatility (9.80%) compared to CGIE (5.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGIE dropped -13.82% vs KEMX's -38.80%.

Which ETF is better, CGIE or KEMX?

On 1-year performance, KEMX leads with 75.91% vs 13.91% for CGIE. On fees, KEMX is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, CGIE has been the lower-risk option at 5.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGIE or KEMX?

Over the 1-year period, KEMX has performed better with a 75.91% return vs 13.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGIE or KEMX?

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

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

KEMX has the higher dividend yield at 2.33%, compared with 1.10% for CGIE.

What is the main difference between CGIE and KEMX?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KEMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.40 vs 0.87), 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.