CRAK vs. EMEQ

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

CRAK (VanEck Oil Refiners ETF) and EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CRAK is a Energy Equities fund tracking the MVIS Global Oil Refiners Index, while EMEQ is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Nomura. CRAK is passively managed, while EMEQ is actively managed. Over the past year, CRAK returned 50.69% vs 153.11% for EMEQ. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CRAK charges 0.62%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for EMEQ.

Performance

CRAK vs. EMEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Oil Refiners ETF (CRAK) 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, CRAK achieves a 25.47% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 78.37% return.

CRAK

• 1D: -2.93%
• 1M: -4.46%
• YTD: 25.47%
• 6M: 21.62%
• 1Y: 50.69%
• 3Y*: 19.21%
• 5Y*: 12.50%
• 10Y*: 13.08%

EMEQ

• 1D: 4.84%
• 1M: 15.54%
• YTD: 78.37%
• 6M: 90.73%
• 1Y: 153.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CRAK vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CRAK VanEck Oil Refiners ETF	25.47%	39.11%	-15.88%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	78.37%	69.78%	-0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between CRAK and EMEQ is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.37

CRAK vs. EMEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CRAK	EMEQ
Energy	98.8%	1.3%
Industrials	4.0%	0.3%
Basic Materials	1.2%	1.3%
Communication Services	-	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.8%
Financial Services	-	6.8%
Healthcare	-	1.4%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	1.1%
Utilities	-	0.9%

Return for Risk

CRAK vs. EMEQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

CRAK

CRAK Risk / Return Rank: 87
CRAK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
CRAK Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
CRAK Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CRAK Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
CRAK Martin Ratio Rank: 84

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 96
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

CRAK vs. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Oil Refiners ETF (CRAK) 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.

	CRAK	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.69	4.32	-1.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.54	4.33	-0.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.66	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.41	8.60	-3.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.53	32.09	-16.57

CRAK vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CRAK Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is lower than the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 4.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CRAK 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

CRAK vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CRAK drawdown since its inception was -58.80%, which is greater than EMEQ's maximum drawdown of -19.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CRAK and EMEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CRAK	EMEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.80%	-19.99%	-38.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.41%	-17.91%	+8.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-35.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.61%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-58.80%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.41%	-1.12%	-8.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.47%	-4.04%	-8.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.27%	4.79%	-1.52%

Volatility

CRAK vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Oil Refiners ETF (CRAK) is 6.48%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 19.86%. This indicates that CRAK 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

	CRAK	EMEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.48%	19.86%	-13.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.01%	32.72%	-17.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.94%	35.77%	-16.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.72%	32.02%	-11.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.18%	32.02%	-9.84%

CRAK vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CRAK has a 0.62% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

CRAK vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

CRAK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, more than EMEQ's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CRAK VanEck Oil Refiners ETF	1.61%	2.02%	5.60%	3.65%	3.08%	2.40%	2.64%	1.49%	2.42%	1.66%	3.42%	0.47%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.55%	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 CRAK and EMEQ in my portfolio?

CRAK and EMEQ have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CRAK or EMEQ?

EMEQ has higher volatility (19.86%) compared to CRAK (6.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CRAK dropped -58.80% vs EMEQ's -19.99%.

Which ETF is better, CRAK or EMEQ?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 153.11% vs 50.69% for CRAK. On fees, CRAK is cheaper at 0.62% per year. On volatility, CRAK has been the lower-risk option at 6.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CRAK or EMEQ?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 153.11% return vs 50.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CRAK or EMEQ?

CRAK is cheaper with a 0.62% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

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

CRAK has the higher dividend yield at 1.61%, compared with 1.55% for EMEQ.

What is the main difference between CRAK and EMEQ?

CRAK is categorized as Energy Equities, while EMEQ is Emerging Markets Diversified. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.62% for CRAK and 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.32 vs 2.69), 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.