EEMA vs. GMF
Compare and contrast key facts about iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF).
EEMA and GMF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EEMA is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. It was launched on Feb 8, 2012. GMF is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index. It was launched on Mar 19, 2007. Both EEMA and GMF are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: EEMA or GMF.
Correlation
The correlation between EEMA and GMF is 0.92, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
EEMA vs. GMF - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
EEMA:
1.06
GMF:
1.27
EEMA:
1.58
GMF:
1.82
EEMA:
1.20
GMF:
1.24
EEMA:
0.63
GMF:
0.83
EEMA:
3.10
GMF:
3.56
EEMA:
6.04%
GMF:
5.82%
EEMA:
17.71%
GMF:
16.32%
EEMA:
-44.18%
GMF:
-67.18%
EEMA:
-16.77%
GMF:
-9.47%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EEMA achieves a 6.94% return, which is significantly higher than GMF's 3.65% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMA has underperformed GMF with an annualized return of 4.28%, while GMF has yielded a comparatively higher 5.58% annualized return.
EEMA
6.94%
5.70%
4.98%
16.70%
4.01%
4.28%
GMF
3.65%
3.59%
7.17%
18.92%
5.67%
5.58%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
EEMA vs. GMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
EEMA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than GMF's 0.49% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
EEMA vs. GMF — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank
EEMA
GMF
EEMA vs. GMF - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF). 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.
Dividends
EEMA vs. GMF - Dividend Comparison
EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.63%, less than GMF's 1.85% yield.
| TTM | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF | 1.63% | 1.74% | 2.25% | 1.78% | 2.19% | 1.15% | 1.86% | 2.17% | 1.73% | 1.74% | 2.44% | 1.33% |
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF | 1.85% | 1.92% | 2.75% | 2.54% | 2.71% | 1.32% | 1.75% | 2.26% | 1.70% | 2.49% | 3.76% | 1.55% |
Drawdowns
EEMA vs. GMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, smaller than the maximum GMF drawdown of -67.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and GMF. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
EEMA vs. GMF - Volatility Comparison
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a higher volatility of 4.53% compared to SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) at 4.22%. This indicates that EEMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.