DEXC vs. EMDM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

DEXC (Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF) and EMDM (First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. DEXC is actively managed, while EMDM is passively managed. Over the past year, DEXC returned 39.06% vs 66.00% for EMDM. Their correlation of 0.92 means they have usually moved in the same direction. 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

In the year-to-date period, DEXC achieves a 22.11% return, which is significantly lower than EMDM's 27.86% return.

DEXC

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: -6.85%
• 6M: 13.02%
• YTD: 22.11%
• 1Y: 39.06%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 28.12%

EMDM

• 1D: 0.46%
• 1M: -3.52%
• 6M: 13.18%
• YTD: 27.86%
• 1Y: 66.00%
• 3Y*: 26.67%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 26.46%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
DEXC Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF	$1.25M	$1.39M	$1.60M
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	$660.85K	$757.43K	$571.79K

DEXC vs. EMDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
DEXC Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF	22.11%	27.13%	-1.63%
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	27.86%	59.68%	-3.80%

Correlation

The correlation between DEXC and EMDM is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 14, 2024	0.92

The correlation between DEXC and EMDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

DEXC vs. EMDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DEXC	EMDM
Technology	48.1%	39.9%
Financial Services	14.7%	25.6%
Industrials	9.3%	2.6%
Basic Materials	6.5%	12.7%
Consumer Cyclical	5.9%	5.3%
Communication Services	3.2%	4.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	3.1%
Energy	3.1%	4.8%
Healthcare	2.8%	0.5%
Utilities	1.9%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.4%	-

Return for Risk

DEXC vs. EMDM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

DEXC

DEXC Risk / Return Rank: 64
DEXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
DEXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
DEXC Omega Ratio Rank: 69
DEXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
DEXC Martin Ratio Rank: 67

EMDM

EMDM Risk / Return Rank: 90
EMDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
EMDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
EMDM Omega Ratio Rank: 89
EMDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
EMDM Martin Ratio Rank: 89

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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.

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	EMDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.50	2.38	-0.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.03	2.91	-0.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.41	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.12	4.23	-2.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.09	13.54	-5.44

DEXC vs. EMDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DEXC Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is lower than the EMDM Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. 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.

Drawdowns

DEXC vs. EMDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DEXC drawdown since its inception was -18.31%, roughly equal to 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	-18.31%	-18.81%	+0.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.31%	-15.65%	-2.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.30%	-10.88%	-3.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.92%	-4.20%	+1.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.79%	4.88%	-0.09%

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 10.08% and 9.95%, 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	10.08%	9.95%	+0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.42%	25.55%	-1.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.90%	27.87%	-1.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.68%	21.16%	+1.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.68%	21.16%	+1.52%

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 1.67%, less than EMDM's 2.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
DEXC Dimensional Emerging Markets ex China Core Equity ETF	1.67%	1.97%	0.19%	0.00%
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	2.96%	3.57%	5.87%	2.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DEXC and EMDM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, 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?

DEXC has higher volatility (10.08%) compared to EMDM (9.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DEXC dropped -18.31% vs EMDM's -18.81%.

Which ETF is better, DEXC or EMDM?

On 1-year performance, EMDM leads with 66.00% vs 39.06% for DEXC. On fees, DEXC is cheaper at 0.43% per year. On volatility, EMDM has been the lower-risk option at 9.95%. 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 66.00% return vs 39.06%. 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 2.96%, compared with 1.67% for DEXC.

What is the main difference between DEXC and EMDM?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional 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 (2.38 vs 1.50), 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.