PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EEMO vs. GMF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EEMO vs. GMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO) and SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMO achieves a 41.14% return, which is significantly higher than GMF's 11.36% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMO has underperformed GMF with an annualized return of 9.15%, while GMF has yielded a comparatively higher 10.31% annualized return.


EEMO

1D
3.82%
1M
3.90%
YTD
41.14%
6M
40.15%
1Y
49.68%
3Y*
24.60%
5Y*
6.84%
10Y*
9.15%

GMF

1D
-0.40%
1M
-0.77%
YTD
11.36%
6M
11.27%
1Y
23.99%
3Y*
18.52%
5Y*
5.05%
10Y*
10.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMO vs. GMF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMO
Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF
41.14%10.99%9.88%13.90%-18.73%-5.57%9.66%21.17%-17.24%49.65%
GMF
SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF
11.36%21.99%16.55%8.20%-18.99%-1.93%24.96%19.92%-14.25%41.71%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMO and GMF is 0.84, 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

0.84

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

0.79

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

0.79

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

0.78

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 24, 2012

0.67

The correlation between EEMO and GMF shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (all time) to 0.84 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EEMO vs. GMF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EEMO
GMF

Technology

53.0%
40.8%

Financial Services

15.4%
15.4%

Basic Materials

9.9%
5.8%

Industrials

7.5%
7.3%

Consumer Cyclical

2.8%
10.7%

Healthcare

2.3%
4.5%

Communication Services

1.2%
6.4%

Utilities

1.0%
2.0%

Energy

0.8%
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

0.6%
2.9%

Real Estate

0.3%
1.0%

Technology

EEMO
53.0%
GMF
40.8%

Financial Services

EEMO
15.4%
GMF
15.4%

Basic Materials

EEMO
9.9%
GMF
5.8%

Industrials

EEMO
7.5%
GMF
7.3%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMO
2.8%
GMF
10.7%

Healthcare

EEMO
2.3%
GMF
4.5%

Communication Services

EEMO
1.2%
GMF
6.4%

Utilities

EEMO
1.0%
GMF
2.0%

Energy

EEMO
0.8%
GMF
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

EEMO
0.6%
GMF
2.9%

Real Estate

EEMO
0.3%
GMF
1.0%

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

EEMO vs. GMF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMO
EEMO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
EEMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMO Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMO Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank

GMF
GMF Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
GMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4242
Sortino Ratio Rank
GMF Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
GMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
GMF Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
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.

EEMO vs. GMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO) 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.

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.


EEMOGMFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.28

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.30

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.26

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.38

1.91

+1.47

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.20

6.90

+5.31

EEMO vs. GMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMO Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is comparable to the GMF Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMO and GMF, 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

EEMO vs. GMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMO drawdown since its inception was -48.47%, smaller than the maximum GMF drawdown of -67.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMO and GMF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EEMOGMFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.47%

-67.18%

+18.71%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.75%

-12.62%

-2.13%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.06%

-21.43%

-4.63%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.03%

-35.76%

+1.73%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.57%

-40.18%

-6.39%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.50%

-4.23%

-0.27%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.11%

-16.55%

-3.56%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.08%

3.49%

+0.59%

Volatility

EEMO vs. GMF - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO) has a higher volatility of 19.67% compared to SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) at 7.93%. This indicates that EEMO'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EEMOGMFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

19.67%

7.93%

+11.74%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

28.97%

15.27%

+13.70%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

30.38%

17.63%

+12.75%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.99%

18.78%

+2.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.36%

19.22%

+3.14%

EEMO vs. GMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMO has a 0.31% expense ratio, which is lower than GMF's 0.49% expense ratio.


Dividends

EEMO vs. GMF - Dividend Comparison

EEMO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, more than GMF's 1.21% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMO
Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF
1.61%2.31%2.57%3.65%3.82%1.51%1.53%2.13%13.10%5.13%1.55%2.92%
GMF
SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF
1.21%1.49%1.92%2.75%2.54%2.71%1.32%1.75%2.26%1.70%2.49%3.76%

Frequently Asked Questions


EEMO and GMF have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EEMO has higher volatility (19.67%) compared to GMF (7.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMO dropped -48.47% vs GMF's -67.18%.

On 10-year performance, GMF leads with 10.31% vs 9.15% for EEMO. On fees, EEMO is cheaper at 0.31% per year. On volatility, GMF has been the lower-risk option at 7.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, GMF has performed better with a 10.31% return vs 9.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EEMO is cheaper with a 0.31% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for GMF.

EEMO has the higher dividend yield at 1.61%, compared with 1.21% for GMF.

EEMO is categorized as Momentum, while GMF is Asia Pacific Equities. EEMO tracks S&P Momentum Emerging Plus LargeMidCap Index, while GMF tracks S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.31% for EEMO and 0.49% for GMF.

EEMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs 1.37), 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 EEMO and GMF

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