DFEM vs. EMDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DFEM (Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF) and EMDM (First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. DFEM is actively managed, while EMDM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, DFEM returned 23.24%/yr vs 32.95%/yr for EMDM. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DFEM charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for EMDM.

Performance

DFEM vs. EMDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) 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, DFEM achieves a 25.59% return, which is significantly lower than EMDM's 39.03% return.

DFEM

• 1D: -1.28%
• 1M: 6.85%
• YTD: 25.59%
• 6M: 27.96%
• 1Y: 50.40%
• 3Y*: 23.24%
• 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)

DFEM vs. EMDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DFEM Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF	25.59%	29.51%	7.53%	7.86%
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	39.03%	59.68%	-4.93%	14.21%

Correlation

The correlation between DFEM and EMDM is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2023	0.89

The correlation between DFEM and EMDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

DFEM vs. EMDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFEM	EMDM
Technology	32.9%	32.1%
Financial Services	15.4%	27.2%
Industrials	11.9%	3.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	6.0%
Basic Materials	8.4%	15.1%
Communication Services	5.5%	4.3%
Energy	4.4%	6.3%
Healthcare	3.8%	0.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	3.4%
Utilities	2.2%	1.9%
Real Estate	2.0%	-

Return for Risk

DFEM vs. EMDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFEM

DFEM Risk / Return Rank: 81
DFEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
DFEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
DFEM Omega Ratio Rank: 82
DFEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
DFEM Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

DFEM vs. EMDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) 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.

	DFEM	EMDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	3.92	-1.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.54	4.56	-1.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.66	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.18	5.87	-1.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.33	24.30	-7.96
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DFEM vs. EMDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is lower than the EMDM Sharpe Ratio of 3.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFEM 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

	DFEM	EMDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	3.92	-1.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	1.58	-0.67

Drawdowns

DFEM vs. EMDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFEM drawdown since its inception was -20.82%, which is greater than EMDM's maximum drawdown of -18.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFEM and EMDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFEM	EMDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.82%	-18.81%	-2.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.12%	-15.65%	+3.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.09%	-18.81%	+0.72%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.28%	-1.32%	+0.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.03%	-4.07%	-0.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.09%	3.77%	-0.68%

Volatility

DFEM vs. EMDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) is 7.78%, while First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM) has a volatility of 9.61%. This indicates that DFEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	DFEM	EMDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.78%	9.61%	-1.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.02%	20.78%	-4.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.45%	23.42%	-4.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.26%	19.79%	-2.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.26%	19.79%	-2.53%

DFEM vs. EMDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFEM has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than EMDM's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

DFEM vs. EMDM - Dividend Comparison

DFEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.82%, less than EMDM's 2.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
DFEM Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF	1.82%	2.32%	2.50%	2.38%	1.99%
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	2.57%	3.57%	5.87%	2.16%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFEM and EMDM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, DFEM 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, DFEM or EMDM?

EMDM has higher volatility (9.61%) compared to DFEM (7.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFEM dropped -20.82% vs EMDM's -18.81%.

Which ETF is better, DFEM or EMDM?

On 3-year performance, EMDM leads with 32.95% vs 23.24% for DFEM. On fees, DFEM is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, DFEM has been the lower-risk option at 7.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFEM or EMDM?

Over the 3-year period, EMDM has performed better with a 32.95% return vs 23.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFEM or EMDM?

DFEM is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMDM.

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

EMDM has the higher dividend yield at 2.57%, compared with 1.82% for DFEM.

What is the main difference between DFEM and EMDM?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for DFEM and 0.75% for EMDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.92 vs 2.74), 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.