PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ECON vs. QEMM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ECON vs. QEMM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF (ECON) and SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECON achieves a 31.82% return, which is significantly higher than QEMM's 21.11% return. Over the past 10 years, ECON has underperformed QEMM with an annualized return of 6.38%, while QEMM has yielded a comparatively higher 8.86% annualized return.


ECON

1D
-5.13%
1M
5.11%
YTD
31.82%
6M
32.29%
1Y
58.08%
3Y*
22.38%
5Y*
6.68%
10Y*
6.38%

QEMM

1D
-3.77%
1M
1.15%
YTD
21.11%
6M
21.59%
1Y
35.60%
3Y*
18.42%
5Y*
7.03%
10Y*
8.86%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ECON vs. QEMM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ECON
Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF
31.82%34.15%0.22%7.51%-16.00%-14.11%20.83%17.22%-26.87%27.46%
QEMM
SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF
21.11%21.92%4.98%12.50%-17.82%6.34%9.95%15.40%-13.33%31.50%

Correlation

The correlation between ECON and QEMM is 0.91, 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

0.91

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.90

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.87

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.87

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 6, 2014

0.81

The correlation between ECON and QEMM shifts across timeframes, from 0.81 (all time) to 0.91 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ECON vs. QEMM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ECON
QEMM

Technology

44.0%
25.2%

Financial Services

20.5%
13.1%

Industrials

6.7%
1.8%

Consumer Cyclical

6.1%
4.8%

Basic Materials

5.5%
3.0%

Communication Services

5.3%
2.4%

Energy

3.5%
2.4%

Consumer Defensive

2.9%
2.1%

Healthcare

2.6%
0.9%

Utilities

1.8%
1.5%

Real Estate

1.1%
0.6%

Technology

ECON
44.0%
QEMM
25.2%

Financial Services

ECON
20.5%
QEMM
13.1%

Industrials

ECON
6.7%
QEMM
1.8%

Consumer Cyclical

ECON
6.1%
QEMM
4.8%

Basic Materials

ECON
5.5%
QEMM
3.0%

Communication Services

ECON
5.3%
QEMM
2.4%

Energy

ECON
3.5%
QEMM
2.4%

Consumer Defensive

ECON
2.9%
QEMM
2.1%

Healthcare

ECON
2.6%
QEMM
0.9%

Utilities

ECON
1.8%
QEMM
1.5%

Real Estate

ECON
1.1%
QEMM
0.6%

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

ECON vs. QEMM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ECON
ECON Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
ECON Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ECON Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
ECON Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
ECON Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
ECON Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
Martin Ratio Rank

QEMM
QEMM Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
QEMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QEMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
QEMM Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
QEMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
QEMM Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
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.

ECON vs. QEMM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF (ECON) and SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM). 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.


ECONQEMMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.55

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.57

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.37

+0.09

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.24

3.44

+0.81

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.17

12.14

+3.03

ECON vs. QEMM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECON Sharpe Ratio is 2.48, which is comparable to the QEMM Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECON and QEMM, 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

ECON vs. QEMM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECON drawdown since its inception was -45.37%, which is greater than QEMM's maximum drawdown of -36.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECON and QEMM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ECONQEMMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.37%

-36.89%

-8.48%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.76%

-10.40%

-3.36%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.37%

-17.03%

+0.66%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.08%

-27.19%

-10.89%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.37%

-36.89%

-8.48%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.13%

-4.06%

-1.07%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.60%

-10.60%

-6.00%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.84%

2.94%

+0.90%

Volatility

ECON vs. QEMM - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF (ECON) has a higher volatility of 13.47% compared to SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF (QEMM) at 9.31%. This indicates that ECON's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QEMM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ECONQEMMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.47%

9.31%

+4.16%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.31%

16.80%

+4.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.50%

18.46%

+5.04%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.95%

15.64%

+5.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.23%

16.98%

+4.25%

ECON vs. QEMM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECON has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than QEMM's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

ECON vs. QEMM - Dividend Comparison

ECON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.34%, less than QEMM's 4.46% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ECON
Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF
1.34%1.77%0.76%1.57%2.06%1.08%0.63%1.68%0.98%0.35%0.74%1.10%
QEMM
SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets StrategicFactors ETF
4.46%4.90%5.17%4.88%4.07%2.35%2.48%3.05%2.86%2.11%2.03%2.14%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.91, ECON and QEMM 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.

ECON has higher volatility (13.47%) compared to QEMM (9.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECON dropped -45.37% vs QEMM's -36.89%.

On 10-year performance, QEMM leads with 8.86% vs 6.38% for ECON. On fees, QEMM is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, QEMM has been the lower-risk option at 9.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, QEMM has performed better with a 8.86% return vs 6.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QEMM is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ECON.

QEMM has the higher dividend yield at 4.46%, compared with 1.34% for ECON.

ECON tracks Dow Jones Emerging Markets Consumer Titans Index, while QEMM tracks MSCI EM Factor Mix A-Series (USD). They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ECON and 0.30% for QEMM.

ECON currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.48 vs 1.94), 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 ECON and QEMM

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