DEXC vs. EMDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DEXC (Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF) and EMDM (First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. DEXC is actively managed, while EMDM is passively managed. Over the past year, DEXC returned 63.36% vs 91.32% for EMDM. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DEXC charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for EMDM.

Performance

DEXC vs. EMDM - 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 First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with DEXC having a 37.31% return and EMDM slightly higher at 39.03%.

DEXC

• 1D: -0.88%
• 1M: 11.20%
• YTD: 37.31%
• 6M: 41.69%
• 1Y: 63.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMDM

• 1D: -1.32%
• 1M: 11.04%
• YTD: 39.03%
• 6M: 45.21%
• 1Y: 91.32%
• 3Y*: 32.95%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DEXC vs. EMDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
DEXC Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF	37.31%	27.13%	-1.20%
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	39.03%	59.68%	-3.72%

Correlation

The correlation between DEXC and EMDM is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 15, 2024	0.91

The correlation between DEXC and EMDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

DEXC vs. EMDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DEXC	EMDM
Technology	42.7%	32.1%
Financial Services	13.6%	27.2%
Industrials	9.2%	3.3%
Basic Materials	7.5%	15.1%
Consumer Cyclical	5.6%	6.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	3.4%
Communication Services	2.8%	4.3%
Energy	2.7%	6.3%
Healthcare	2.6%	0.5%
Utilities	1.9%	1.9%
Real Estate	1.3%	-

Return for Risk

DEXC vs. EMDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

DEXC

DEXC Risk / Return Rank: 89
DEXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
DEXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
DEXC Omega Ratio Rank: 89
DEXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
DEXC Martin Ratio Rank: 89

EMDM

EMDM Risk / Return Rank: 93
EMDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
EMDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
EMDM Omega Ratio Rank: 93
EMDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
EMDM Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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. EMDM - 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 First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM). 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.

	DEXC	EMDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.12	3.92	-0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.99	4.56	-0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.66	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.95	5.87	-0.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.75	24.30	-4.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DEXC vs. EMDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DEXC Sharpe Ratio is 3.12, which is comparable to the EMDM Sharpe Ratio of 3.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DEXC and EMDM, 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

	DEXC	EMDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.12	3.92	-0.81
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.17	1.58	+0.59

Drawdowns

DEXC vs. EMDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DEXC drawdown since its inception was -15.07%, smaller than the maximum EMDM drawdown of -18.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DEXC and EMDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	DEXC	EMDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.07%	-18.81%	+3.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.86%	-15.65%	+2.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.88%	-1.32%	+0.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.41%	-4.07%	+1.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.22%	3.77%	-0.55%

Volatility

DEXC vs. EMDM - Volatility Comparison

Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF (DEXC) and First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM) have volatilities of 9.61% and 9.61%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DEXC	EMDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.61%	9.61%	0.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.28%	20.78%	-2.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.44%	23.42%	-2.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.73%	19.79%	-0.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.73%	19.79%	-0.06%

DEXC vs. EMDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

DEXC has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is lower than EMDM's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

DEXC vs. EMDM - Dividend Comparison

DEXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, less than EMDM's 2.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
DEXC Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF	1.45%	1.97%	0.19%	0.00%
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	2.57%	3.57%	5.87%	2.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DEXC and EMDM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, DEXC and EMDM 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 EMDM?

EMDM has higher volatility (9.61%) compared to DEXC (9.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DEXC dropped -15.07% vs EMDM's -18.81%.

Which ETF is better, DEXC or EMDM?

On 1-year performance, EMDM leads with 91.32% vs 63.36% for DEXC. On fees, DEXC is cheaper at 0.43% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DEXC or EMDM?

Over the 1-year period, EMDM has performed better with a 91.32% return vs 63.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DEXC or EMDM?

DEXC is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMDM.

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

EMDM has the higher dividend yield at 2.57%, compared with 1.45% for DEXC.

What is the main difference between DEXC and EMDM?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional Fund Advisors and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for DEXC and 0.75% for EMDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.92 vs 3.12), 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.