PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EEMV vs. QDF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EEMV vs. QDF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) and FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EEMV having a 11.64% return and QDF slightly higher at 12.15%. Over the past 10 years, EEMV has underperformed QDF with an annualized return of 5.61%, while QDF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.84% annualized return.


EEMV

1D
-0.08%
1M
-7.54%
6M
8.10%
YTD
11.64%
1Y
15.38%
3Y*
11.47%
5Y*
5.12%
10Y*
5.61%
ALL TIME*
5.18%

QDF

1D
-0.54%
1M
0.78%
6M
10.01%
YTD
12.15%
1Y
22.84%
3Y*
16.92%
5Y*
11.96%
10Y*
11.84%
ALL TIME*
12.65%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMV vs. QDF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
11.64%13.45%7.98%7.75%-13.94%5.05%6.90%7.83%-5.81%27.28%
QDF
FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund
12.15%16.58%16.95%19.71%-12.13%26.65%4.86%25.71%-7.97%17.42%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMV and QDF is 0.71, 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

0.71

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

0.62

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

0.62

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

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2012

0.64

The correlation between EEMV and QDF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMV vs. QDF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EEMV
QDF

Technology

37.4%
37.6%

Financial Services

18.3%
14.6%

Communication Services

10.0%
5.9%

Consumer Cyclical

6.7%
7.0%

Industrials

5.8%
10.2%

Healthcare

5.5%
8.8%

Consumer Defensive

5.4%
5.5%

Utilities

4.2%
0.7%

Energy

3.5%
0.9%

Basic Materials

2.6%
1.5%

Real Estate

0.6%
5.5%

Technology

EEMV
37.4%
QDF
37.6%

Financial Services

EEMV
18.3%
QDF
14.6%

Communication Services

EEMV
10.0%
QDF
5.9%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMV
6.7%
QDF
7.0%

Industrials

EEMV
5.8%
QDF
10.2%

Healthcare

EEMV
5.5%
QDF
8.8%

Consumer Defensive

EEMV
5.4%
QDF
5.5%

Utilities

EEMV
4.2%
QDF
0.7%

Energy

EEMV
3.5%
QDF
0.9%

Basic Materials

EEMV
2.6%
QDF
1.5%

Real Estate

EEMV
0.6%
QDF
5.5%

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

EEMV vs. QDF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMV
EEMV Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
EEMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMV Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMV Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank

QDF
QDF Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
QDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
QDF Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
QDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
QDF Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
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.

EEMV vs. QDF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) and FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF). 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.


EEMVQDFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.93

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.31

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.35

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.67

2.90

-1.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.34

12.45

-7.11

EEMV vs. QDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMV Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is lower than the QDF Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMV and QDF, 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

EEMV vs. QDF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMV drawdown since its inception was -31.56%, smaller than the maximum QDF drawdown of -36.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMV and QDF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EEMVQDFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.56%

-36.67%

+5.11%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.22%

-7.90%

-1.32%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.47%

-18.01%

+5.54%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.90%

-22.06%

+0.16%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.56%

-36.67%

+5.11%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.88%

-0.99%

-6.89%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.94%

-3.62%

-4.32%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.89%

1.84%

+1.05%

Volatility

EEMV vs. QDF - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) has a higher volatility of 6.62% compared to FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) at 2.99%. This indicates that EEMV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QDF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EEMVQDFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.62%

2.99%

+3.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.93%

9.58%

+5.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.97%

12.09%

+3.88%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.51%

15.63%

-3.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.00%

17.37%

-3.37%

EEMV vs. QDF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMV has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than QDF's 0.37% expense ratio.


Dividends

EEMV vs. QDF - Dividend Comparison

EEMV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%, more than QDF's 1.50% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
2.29%2.65%3.50%2.75%1.93%2.14%2.45%2.63%2.46%2.34%2.79%2.55%
QDF
FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund
1.50%1.65%1.93%2.19%2.45%1.90%2.38%3.05%4.29%2.70%3.07%3.04%

Frequently Asked Questions


EEMV and QDF have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EEMV has higher volatility (6.62%) compared to QDF (2.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMV dropped -31.56% vs QDF's -36.67%.

On 10-year performance, QDF leads with 11.84% vs 5.61% for EEMV. On fees, EEMV is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, QDF has been the lower-risk option at 2.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, QDF has performed better with a 11.84% return vs 5.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EEMV is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.37% for QDF.

EEMV has the higher dividend yield at 2.29%, compared with 1.50% for QDF.

EEMV is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while QDF is Large Cap Value Equities. EEMV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index, while QDF tracks Northern Trust Quality Dividend Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and FlexShares. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EEMV and 0.37% for QDF.

QDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 0.97), 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 EEMV and QDF

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