EEMS vs. XCNY

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

EEMS (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF) and XCNY (SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds - EEMS tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index while XCNY tracks the S&P Emerging ex-China BMI. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EEMS returned 20.67% vs 31.84% for XCNY. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EEMS charges 0.73%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for XCNY.

Performance

EEMS vs. XCNY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) and SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMS achieves a 11.30% return, which is significantly lower than XCNY's 18.28% return.

EEMS

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: -4.96%
• YTD: 11.30%
• 6M: 12.14%
• 1Y: 20.67%
• 3Y*: 15.22%
• 5Y*: 6.27%
• 10Y*: 9.50%

XCNY

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: -0.34%
• YTD: 18.28%
• 6M: 18.79%
• 1Y: 31.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EEMS vs. XCNY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	11.30%	19.78%	-2.53%
XCNY SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	18.28%	20.42%	-3.63%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMS and XCNY is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.86

The correlation between EEMS and XCNY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMS vs. XCNY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EEMS	XCNY
Technology	26.4%	37.1%
Industrials	18.2%	3.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	2.9%
Financial Services	9.9%	11.8%
Healthcare	8.7%	0.7%
Basic Materials	8.6%	3.7%
Real Estate	5.8%	0.9%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	1.7%
Communication Services	2.9%	1.3%
Utilities	2.6%	1.8%
Energy	2.1%	3.4%

Return for Risk

EEMS vs. XCNY — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMS

EEMS Risk / Return Rank: 37
EEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
EEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
EEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 35
EEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
EEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 44

XCNY

XCNY Risk / Return Rank: 61
XCNY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
XCNY Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
XCNY Omega Ratio Rank: 62
XCNY Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
XCNY Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. XCNY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) and SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY). 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	XCNY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.09	1.78	-0.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.53	2.45	-0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.33	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.91	2.70	-0.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.34	10.05	-3.71

EEMS vs. XCNY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.09, which is lower than the XCNY Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMS and XCNY, 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. XCNY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMS drawdown since its inception was -48.89%, which is greater than XCNY's maximum drawdown of -19.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMS and XCNY.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEMS	XCNY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.89%	-19.70%	-29.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-11.86%	+0.99%
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	-5.24%	-4.19%	-1.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.48%	-4.09%	-6.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.27%	3.18%	+0.09%

Volatility

EEMS vs. XCNY - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) has a higher volatility of 9.25% compared to SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY) at 8.09%. This indicates that EEMS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XCNY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EEMS	XCNY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.25%	8.09%	+1.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.17%	16.23%	+0.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.96%	17.94%	+1.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.50%	18.35%	-1.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.12%	18.35%	-0.23%

EEMS vs. XCNY - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMS has a 0.73% expense ratio, which is higher than XCNY's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEMS vs. XCNY - Dividend Comparison

EEMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.87%, more than XCNY's 2.26% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	2.87%	3.09%	2.60%	2.69%	0.89%	3.56%	2.14%	2.64%	3.06%	2.47%	2.51%	2.33%
XCNY SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	2.26%	2.68%	1.07%	0.00%	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 XCNY in my portfolio?

EEMS and XCNY have a correlation of 0.86, 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 XCNY?

EEMS has higher volatility (9.25%) compared to XCNY (8.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMS dropped -48.89% vs XCNY's -19.70%.

Which ETF is better, EEMS or XCNY?

On 1-year performance, XCNY leads with 31.84% vs 20.67% for EEMS. On fees, XCNY is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, XCNY has been the lower-risk option at 8.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEMS or XCNY?

Over the 1-year period, XCNY has performed better with a 31.84% return vs 20.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEMS or XCNY?

XCNY is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for EEMS.

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

EEMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.87%, compared with 2.26% for XCNY.

What is the main difference between EEMS and XCNY?

EEMS tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index, while XCNY tracks S&P Emerging ex-China BMI. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.73% for EEMS and 0.15% for XCNY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XCNY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs 1.09), 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.