PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ECNS vs. EMMF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ECNS vs. EMMF

Last updated Aug 4, 2026
Documentation

ECNS (iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF) and EMMF (WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - ECNS is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China Small Cap Index, while EMMF is a Emerging Markets Equities fund actively managed by WisdomTree. ECNS is passively managed, while EMMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ECNS returned -7.01%/yr vs 9.81%/yr for EMMF. Their 0.63 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ECNS charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for EMMF.

Performance

ECNS vs. EMMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) and WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECNS achieves a -10.84% return, which is significantly lower than EMMF's 16.83% return.

ECNS

1D
-0.28%
1M
1.48%
6M
-15.13%
YTD
-10.84%
1Y
-10.63%
3Y*
3.54%
5Y*
-7.01%
10Y*
0.89%
ALL TIME*
0.21%

EMMF

1D
0.84%
1M
-2.55%
6M
8.03%
YTD
16.83%
1Y
31.17%
3Y*
18.09%
5Y*
9.81%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
7.58%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

ECNS

iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF
$217.02K$210.44K$354.53K

EMMF

WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund
$691.29K$543.19K$576.00K

ECNS vs. EMMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF		-10.84%36.49%5.64%-23.05%-24.58%2.11%25.42%7.84%-16.85%
EMMF
WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund		16.83%21.22%9.45%20.59%-13.47%5.97%9.25%2.30%-6.45%

Correlation

The correlation between ECNS and EMMF is 0.58, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.58

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.50

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.59

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 10, 2018

0.63

The correlation between ECNS and EMMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (3 years) to 0.63 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ECNS vs. EMMF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ECNS
EMMF

Healthcare

21.2%
4.5%

Industrials

20.1%
12.4%

Technology

10.7%
39.6%

Basic Materials

9.2%
8.0%

Communication Services

8.7%
6.8%

Consumer Cyclical

8.4%
11.0%

Real Estate

8.0%
0.9%

Consumer Defensive

5.3%
2.2%

Financial Services

4.4%
8.5%

Utilities

2.3%
2.9%

Energy

1.8%
3.3%

Healthcare

ECNS
21.2%
EMMF
4.5%

Industrials

ECNS
20.1%
EMMF
12.4%

Technology

ECNS
10.7%
EMMF
39.6%

Basic Materials

ECNS
9.2%
EMMF
8.0%

Communication Services

ECNS
8.7%
EMMF
6.8%

Consumer Cyclical

ECNS
8.4%
EMMF
11.0%

Real Estate

ECNS
8.0%
EMMF
0.9%

Consumer Defensive

ECNS
5.3%
EMMF
2.2%

Financial Services

ECNS
4.4%
EMMF
8.5%

Utilities

ECNS
2.3%
EMMF
2.9%

Energy

ECNS
1.8%
EMMF
3.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF

WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund

Often compared with ECNS:
ECNS vs. ASHSECNS vs. MCHIECNS vs. CNXTECNS vs. DFAEECNS vs. CQQQECNS vs. FLCHECNS vs. EWT
Often compared with EMMF:
EMMF vs. FLTWEMMF vs. HEDJEMMF vs. BKEMEMMF vs. EEMEMMF vs. BBAXEMMF vs. SPEMEMMF vs. UEVM

Return for Risk

ECNS vs. EMMF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
ECNS
ECNS Risk / Return Rank: 55
Overall Rank
ECNS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ECNS Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
Sortino Ratio Rank
ECNS Omega Ratio Rank: 55
Omega Ratio Rank
ECNS Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
Calmar Ratio Rank
ECNS Martin Ratio Rank: 66
Martin Ratio Rank
EMMF
EMMF Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
EMMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMMF Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
EMMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMMF Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ECNS vs. EMMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) and WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF). 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.

ECNSEMMFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
-0.51
1.50

-2.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
-0.57
2.00

-2.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.93

1.29

-0.37

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.41

2.17

-2.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.82

7.68

-8.50

ECNS vs. EMMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECNS Sharpe Ratio is -0.51, which is lower than the EMMF Sharpe Ratio of 1.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECNS and EMMF, 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

ECNS vs. EMMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECNS drawdown since its inception was -63.43%, which is greater than EMMF's maximum drawdown of -32.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECNS and EMMF.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ECNSEMMFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-63.43%

-32.57%

-30.86%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-25.73%

-14.40%

-11.33%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.29%

-16.02%

-13.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.31%

-24.02%

-33.29%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-63.43%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-42.60%

-9.83%

-32.77%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-29.51%

-7.45%

-22.06%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

13.01%

4.07%

+8.94%

Volatility

ECNS vs. EMMF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) is 6.37%, while WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) has a volatility of 8.27%. This indicates that ECNS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ECNSEMMFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.37%

8.27%

-1.90%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.27%

19.26%

-4.99%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.87%

20.88%

-0.01%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.09%

15.42%

+13.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.82%

17.11%

+8.71%

ECNS vs. EMMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECNS has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than EMMF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECNS vs. EMMF - Dividend Comparison

ECNS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.60%, more than EMMF's 2.02% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF		6.60%6.20%5.98%4.89%3.54%4.87%3.59%3.23%6.16%3.18%4.29%3.58%
EMMF
WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund		2.02%2.45%1.30%1.62%3.48%2.64%1.93%2.93%0.66%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

ECNS and EMMF have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EMMF has higher volatility (8.27%) compared to ECNS (6.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECNS dropped -63.43% vs EMMF's -32.57%.

On 5-year performance, EMMF leads with 9.81% vs -7.01% for ECNS. On fees, EMMF is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, ECNS has been the lower-risk option at 6.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, EMMF has performed better with a 9.81% return vs -7.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EMMF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for ECNS.

ECNS has the higher dividend yield at 6.60%, compared with 2.02% for EMMF.

ECNS is categorized as China Equities, while EMMF is Emerging Markets Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and WisdomTree. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ECNS and 0.48% for EMMF.

EMMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.50 vs -0.51), 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 ECNS and EMMF

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