EEMS vs. FTHF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EEMS (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF) and FTHF (First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds - EEMS tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index while FTHF tracks the Emerging Markets Human Flourishing Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EEMS returned 23.79% vs 99.98% for FTHF. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EEMS charges 0.73%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for FTHF.

Performance

EEMS vs. FTHF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) and First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMS achieves a 11.49% return, which is significantly lower than FTHF's 48.98% return.

EEMS

• 1D: -4.01%
• 1M: -2.11%
• YTD: 11.49%
• 6M: 12.59%
• 1Y: 23.79%
• 3Y*: 15.45%
• 5Y*: 6.33%
• 10Y*: 9.32%

FTHF

• 1D: -6.80%
• 1M: 6.57%
• YTD: 48.98%
• 6M: 51.53%
• 1Y: 99.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMS vs. FTHF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	11.49%	19.78%	3.13%	12.70%
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF	48.98%	65.30%	-8.14%	18.14%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMS and FTHF is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2023	0.79

The correlation between EEMS and FTHF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMS vs. FTHF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EEMS	FTHF
Technology	26.4%	49.3%
Industrials	18.2%	5.1%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	0.7%
Financial Services	9.9%	24.4%
Healthcare	8.7%	0.5%
Basic Materials	8.6%	9.2%
Real Estate	5.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	3.0%
Communication Services	2.9%	0.9%
Utilities	2.6%	1.8%
Energy	2.1%	5.3%

Return for Risk

EEMS vs. FTHF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMS

EEMS Risk / Return Rank: 40
EEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
EEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
EEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 38
EEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
EEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 47

FTHF

FTHF Risk / Return Rank: 87
FTHF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FTHF Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
FTHF Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FTHF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
FTHF Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

EEMS vs. FTHF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) and First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF). 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.

	EEMS	FTHF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	2.79	-1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.73	3.22	-1.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.52	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.20	6.16	-3.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.37	16.85	-9.48

EEMS vs. FTHF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the FTHF Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMS and FTHF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EEMS vs. FTHF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMS drawdown since its inception was -48.89%, which is greater than FTHF's maximum drawdown of -17.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMS and FTHF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEMS	FTHF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.89%	-17.36%	-31.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-16.31%	+5.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.71%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.07%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-48.89%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.08%	-6.80%	+1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.48%	-4.22%	-6.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.24%	5.95%	-2.71%

Volatility

EEMS vs. FTHF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) is 9.86%, while First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF) has a volatility of 17.38%. This indicates that EEMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FTHF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EEMS	FTHF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.86%	17.38%	-7.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.19%	28.89%	-11.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.11%	36.06%	-16.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.50%	26.89%	-10.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.12%	26.89%	-8.77%

EEMS vs. FTHF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMS has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is lower than FTHF's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEMS vs. FTHF - Dividend Comparison

EEMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.86%, less than FTHF's 3.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	2.86%	3.09%	2.60%	2.69%	0.89%	3.56%	2.14%	2.64%	3.06%	2.47%	2.51%	2.33%
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF	3.03%	4.40%	3.34%	0.51%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EEMS and FTHF in my portfolio?

EEMS and FTHF have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EEMS or FTHF?

FTHF has higher volatility (17.38%) compared to EEMS (9.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMS dropped -48.89% vs FTHF's -17.36%.

Which ETF is better, EEMS or FTHF?

On 1-year performance, FTHF leads with 99.98% vs 23.79% for EEMS. On fees, EEMS is cheaper at 0.73% per year. On volatility, EEMS has been the lower-risk option at 9.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEMS or FTHF?

Over the 1-year period, FTHF has performed better with a 99.98% return vs 23.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEMS or FTHF?

EEMS is cheaper with a 0.73% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for FTHF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EEMS or FTHF?

FTHF has the higher dividend yield at 3.03%, compared with 2.86% for EEMS.

What is the main difference between EEMS and FTHF?

EEMS tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index, while FTHF tracks Emerging Markets Human Flourishing Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for EEMS and 0.75% for FTHF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FTHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 1.25), 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.