DEXC vs. EEMS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

DEXC (Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF) and EEMS (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. DEXC is actively managed, while EEMS is passively managed. Over the past year, DEXC returned 55.75% vs 23.79% for EEMS. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DEXC charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.73%/yr for EEMS.

Performance

DEXC vs. EEMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF (DEXC) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DEXC achieves a 33.63% return, which is significantly higher than EEMS's 11.49% return.

DEXC

• 1D: -6.22%
• 1M: 3.82%
• YTD: 33.63%
• 6M: 34.97%
• 1Y: 55.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EEMS

• 1D: -4.01%
• 1M: -2.11%
• YTD: 11.49%
• 6M: 12.59%
• 1Y: 23.79%
• 3Y*: 15.45%
• 5Y*: 6.33%
• 10Y*: 9.32%

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

DEXC vs. EEMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
DEXC Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF	33.63%	27.13%	-1.63%
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	11.49%	19.78%	0.23%

Correlation

The correlation between DEXC and EEMS is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 14, 2024	0.91

The correlation between DEXC and EEMS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

DEXC vs. EEMS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DEXC	EEMS
Technology	48.0%	26.4%
Financial Services	14.3%	9.9%
Industrials	9.6%	18.2%
Basic Materials	7.0%	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	5.8%	9.9%
Energy	3.3%	2.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	4.9%
Communication Services	3.0%	2.9%
Healthcare	2.6%	8.7%
Utilities	1.9%	2.6%
Real Estate	1.4%	5.8%

Return for Risk

DEXC vs. EEMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

DEXC

DEXC Risk / Return Rank: 82
DEXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
DEXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
DEXC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
DEXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
DEXC Martin Ratio Rank: 86

EEMS

EEMS Risk / Return Rank: 40
EEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
EEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
EEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 38
EEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
EEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

DEXC vs. EEMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF (DEXC) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS). 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.

	DEXC	EEMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	1.25	+1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.96	1.73	+1.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.24	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.36	2.20	+2.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.49	7.37	+9.12

DEXC vs. EEMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DEXC Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is higher than the EEMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DEXC and EEMS, 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

DEXC vs. EEMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DEXC drawdown since its inception was -15.07%, smaller than the maximum EEMS drawdown of -48.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DEXC and EEMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	DEXC	EEMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.07%	-48.89%	+33.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.86%	-10.87%	-1.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.71%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.07%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-48.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.22%	-5.08%	-1.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.45%	-10.48%	+8.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.39%	3.24%	+0.15%

Volatility

DEXC vs. EEMS - Volatility Comparison

Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF (DEXC) has a higher volatility of 13.89% compared to iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) at 9.86%. This indicates that DEXC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EEMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DEXC	EEMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.89%	9.86%	+4.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.10%	17.19%	+4.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.74%	19.11%	+4.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.74%	16.50%	+5.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.74%	18.12%	+3.62%

DEXC vs. EEMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

DEXC has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMS's 0.73% expense ratio.

Dividends

DEXC vs. EEMS - Dividend Comparison

DEXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.97%, less than EEMS's 2.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DEXC Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF	1.97%	1.97%	0.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	2.86%	3.09%	2.60%	2.69%	0.89%	3.56%	2.14%	2.64%	3.06%	2.47%	2.51%	2.33%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DEXC and EEMS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, DEXC and EEMS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, DEXC or EEMS?

DEXC has higher volatility (13.89%) compared to EEMS (9.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DEXC dropped -15.07% vs EEMS's -48.89%.

Which ETF is better, DEXC or EEMS?

On 1-year performance, DEXC leads with 55.75% vs 23.79% for EEMS. On fees, DEXC is cheaper at 0.43% per year. On volatility, EEMS has been the lower-risk option at 9.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DEXC or EEMS?

Over the 1-year period, DEXC has performed better with a 55.75% return vs 23.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DEXC or EEMS?

DEXC is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for EEMS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, DEXC or EEMS?

EEMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 1.97% for DEXC.

What is the main difference between DEXC and EEMS?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional Fund Advisors and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for DEXC and 0.73% for EEMS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DEXC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.25), 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.