EEM vs. GDXJ
EEM (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) and GDXJ (VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EEM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net), while GDXJ is a Gold fund tracking the MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EEM returned 9.37%/yr vs 11.53%/yr for GDXJ. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EEM charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for GDXJ.
Performance
EEM vs. GDXJ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EEM achieves a 20.18% return, which is significantly higher than GDXJ's -10.70% return. Over the past 10 years, EEM has underperformed GDXJ with an annualized return of 9.37%, while GDXJ has yielded a comparatively higher 11.53% annualized return.
EEM
- 1D
- 1.80%
- 1M
- -3.22%
- YTD
- 20.18%
- 6M
- 22.10%
- 1Y
- 43.51%
- 3Y*
- 20.79%
- 5Y*
- 5.98%
- 10Y*
- 9.37%
GDXJ
- 1D
- 1.01%
- 1M
- -19.25%
- YTD
- -10.70%
- 6M
- -0.52%
- 1Y
- 50.65%
- 3Y*
- 42.13%
- 5Y*
- 15.86%
- 10Y*
- 11.53%
EEM vs. GDXJ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 20.18% | 33.98% | 6.49% | 8.95% | -20.56% | -3.63% | 17.02% | 18.22% | -15.31% | 37.26% |
GDXJ VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF | -10.70% | 172.28% | 15.67% | 7.12% | -14.53% | -21.25% | 30.40% | 40.44% | -11.02% | 8.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between EEM and GDXJ is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.47 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.35 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 11, 2009 | 0.36 |
The correlation between EEM and GDXJ shifts across timeframes, from 0.35 (10 years) to 0.48 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
EEM vs. GDXJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
EEM
GDXJ
Technology
-
Financial Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Industrials
-
Basic Materials
Communication Services
-
Energy
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Healthcare
-
Utilities
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
EEM
GDXJ
-
Financial Services
EEM
GDXJ
-
Consumer Cyclical
EEM
GDXJ
-
Industrials
EEM
GDXJ
-
Basic Materials
EEM
GDXJ
Communication Services
EEM
GDXJ
-
Energy
EEM
GDXJ
-
Consumer Defensive
EEM
GDXJ
-
Healthcare
EEM
GDXJ
-
Utilities
EEM
GDXJ
-
Real Estate
EEM
GDXJ
-
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
EEM vs. GDXJ — Risk / Return Rank
EEM
GDXJ
EEM vs. GDXJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) and VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ). 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.
| EEM | GDXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.06 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.21 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.20 | +0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.23 | 1.43 | +1.80 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.20 | 3.72 | +8.49 |
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
| EEM | GDXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.07 | 1.00 | +1.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.31 | 0.39 | -0.07 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.46 | 0.26 | +0.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.37 | 0.05 | +0.32 |
Drawdowns
EEM vs. GDXJ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EEM drawdown since its inception was -66.43%, smaller than the maximum GDXJ drawdown of -88.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEM and GDXJ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EEM | GDXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -66.43% | -88.66% | +22.23% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.52% | -35.60% | +22.08% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -17.29% | -35.60% | +18.31% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.49% | -50.99% | +13.50% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -39.82% | -57.77% | +17.95% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -7.13% | -34.94% | +27.81% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.01% | -60.48% | +44.47% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.58% | 13.67% | -10.09% |
Volatility
EEM vs. GDXJ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) is 10.60%, while VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF (GDXJ) has a volatility of 17.66%. This indicates that EEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GDXJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EEM | GDXJ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.60% | 17.66% | -7.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.87% | 42.71% | -23.84% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 21.19% | 50.84% | -29.65% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.16% | 41.34% | -22.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.62% | 44.15% | -23.53% |
EEM vs. GDXJ - Expense Ratio Comparison
EEM has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than GDXJ's 0.52% expense ratio.
Dividends
EEM vs. GDXJ - Dividend Comparison
EEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.85%, less than GDXJ's 2.61% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF | 1.85% | 2.22% | 2.43% | 2.63% | 2.50% | 1.99% | 1.45% | 2.76% | 2.24% | 1.89% | 1.89% | 2.49% |
GDXJ VanEck Junior Gold Miners ETF | 2.61% | 2.33% | 2.61% | 0.72% | 0.51% | 1.78% | 1.58% | 0.39% | 0.45% | 0.03% | 4.78% | 0.72% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EEM and GDXJ have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GDXJ has higher volatility (17.66%) compared to EEM (10.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEM dropped -66.43% vs GDXJ's -88.66%.
On 10-year performance, GDXJ leads with 11.53% vs 9.37% for EEM. On fees, GDXJ is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, EEM has been the lower-risk option at 10.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, GDXJ has performed better with a 11.53% return vs 9.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GDXJ is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for EEM.
GDXJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.61%, compared with 1.85% for EEM.
EEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while GDXJ is Gold. EEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Index (Net), while GDXJ tracks MVIS Global Junior Gold Miners Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for EEM and 0.52% for GDXJ.
EEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.00), 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.
Find the right allocation for EEM and GDXJ
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