EDZ vs. NEMG
EDZ (Direxion Daily Emerging Markets Bear 3X Shares) and NEMG (Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF) are both Leveraged Equities funds. EDZ is passively managed, while NEMG is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.53, they often move in opposite directions. EDZ charges 1.08%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for NEMG.
Performance
EDZ vs. NEMG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EDZ achieves a -56.25% return, which is significantly lower than NEMG's 0.49% return.
EDZ
- 1D
- 3.62%
- 1M
- -18.11%
- YTD
- -56.25%
- 6M
- -58.86%
- 1Y
- -74.18%
- 3Y*
- -48.04%
- 5Y*
- -24.82%
- 10Y*
- -36.41%
NEMG
- 1D
- 1.47%
- 1M
- -3.03%
- YTD
- 0.49%
- 6M
- 19.42%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EDZ vs. NEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
EDZ Direxion Daily Emerging Markets Bear 3X Shares | -56.25% | -5.21% |
NEMG Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF | 0.49% | 27.79% |
Correlation
The correlation between EDZ and NEMG is -0.53, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2025 | -0.53 |
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
EDZ vs. NEMG — Risk / Return Rank
EDZ
NEMG
EDZ vs. NEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Direxion Daily Emerging Markets Bear 3X Shares (EDZ) and Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF (NEMG). 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.
| EDZ | NEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.70 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.98 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.68 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EDZ | NEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -1.25 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.44 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.60 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.60 | 0.59 | -1.19 |
Drawdowns
EDZ vs. NEMG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EDZ drawdown since its inception was -99.99%, which is greater than NEMG's maximum drawdown of -51.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EDZ and NEMG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EDZ | NEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.99% | -51.18% | -48.81% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -75.74% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -89.69% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -92.33% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -99.11% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -99.99% | -41.20% | -58.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -97.73% | -20.86% | -76.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 44.50% | — | — |
Volatility
EDZ vs. NEMG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EDZ | NEMG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 25.57% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 51.95% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 59.51% | 99.99% | -40.48% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 57.00% | 99.99% | -42.99% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 60.97% | 99.99% | -39.02% |
EDZ vs. NEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison
EDZ has a 1.08% expense ratio, which is higher than NEMG's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
EDZ vs. NEMG - Dividend Comparison
EDZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.10%, while NEMG has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EDZ Direxion Daily Emerging Markets Bear 3X Shares | 10.10% | 6.58% | 4.87% | 4.34% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.82% | 1.67% | 0.68% |
NEMG Leverage Shares 2x Long NEM Daily ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EDZ and NEMG have a correlation of -0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, NEMG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
NEMG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.08% for EDZ.
EDZ has the higher dividend yield at 10.10%, compared with 0.00% for NEMG.
They also come from different issuers: Direxion and Leverage Shares. Their fees differ too: 1.08% for EDZ and 0.75% for NEMG.
Find the right allocation for EDZ and NEMG
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