PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
DFEM vs. EMM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

DFEM vs. EMM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) and Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, DFEM achieves a 20.81% return, which is significantly lower than EMM's 30.43% return.


DFEM

1D
-5.74%
1M
0.43%
YTD
20.81%
6M
21.36%
1Y
41.37%
3Y*
21.68%
5Y*
10Y*

EMM

1D
-5.60%
1M
4.22%
YTD
30.43%
6M
33.87%
1Y
55.00%
3Y*
21.97%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

DFEM vs. EMM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
DFEM
Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF
20.81%29.51%7.53%10.19%
EMM
Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF
30.43%30.21%2.34%2.99%

Correlation

The correlation between DFEM and EMM 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

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023

0.87

The correlation between DFEM and EMM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

DFEM vs. EMM — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFEM
DFEM Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
DFEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
DFEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
DFEM Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
DFEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
DFEM Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank

EMM
EMM Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
EMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMM Omega Ratio Rank: 7676
Omega Ratio Rank
EMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMM Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
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. EMM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) and Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM). 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.


DFEMEMMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.35

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.42

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.43

3.75

-0.32

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.74

15.03

-2.29

DFEM vs. EMM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.97, which is comparable to the EMM Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFEM and EMM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

DFEM vs. EMM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFEM drawdown since its inception was -20.82%, smaller than the maximum EMM drawdown of -21.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFEM and EMM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


DFEMEMMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-20.82%

-21.99%

+1.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.12%

-14.75%

+2.63%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.09%

-21.99%

+3.90%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.74%

-5.60%

-0.14%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.01%

-4.67%

-0.34%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.26%

3.67%

-0.41%

Volatility

DFEM vs. EMM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) is 12.01%, while Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) has a volatility of 13.10%. This indicates that DFEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


DFEMEMMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

12.01%

13.10%

-1.09%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.31%

22.46%

-3.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.16%

24.51%

-3.35%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.94%

19.83%

-1.89%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.94%

19.83%

-1.89%

DFEM vs. EMM - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

DFEM vs. EMM - Dividend Comparison

DFEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.89%, more than EMM's 0.69% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022
DFEM
Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF
1.89%2.32%2.50%2.38%1.99%
EMM
Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF
0.69%0.90%0.80%0.66%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.90, DFEM and EMM 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.

EMM has higher volatility (13.10%) compared to DFEM (12.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFEM dropped -20.82% vs EMM's -21.99%.

On 3-year performance, EMM leads with 21.97% vs 21.68% for DFEM. On fees, DFEM is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, DFEM has been the lower-risk option at 12.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, EMM has performed better with a 21.97% return vs 21.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

DFEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.89%, compared with 0.69% for EMM.

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for DFEM and 0.75% for EMM.

EMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.25 vs 1.97), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for DFEM and EMM

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer