EEMV vs. QDF

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

EEMV (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF) and QDF (FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - EEMV is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index, while QDF is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Northern Trust Quality Dividend Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EEMV returned 6.37%/yr vs 12.02%/yr for QDF. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EEMV charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.37%/yr for QDF.

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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMV achieves a 13.43% return, which is significantly higher than QDF's 8.98% return. Over the past 10 years, EEMV has underperformed QDF with an annualized return of 6.37%, while QDF has yielded a comparatively higher 12.02% annualized return.

EEMV

• 1D: 1.51%
• 1M: -1.16%
• YTD: 13.43%
• 6M: 14.40%
• 1Y: 20.63%
• 3Y*: 12.52%
• 5Y*: 4.95%
• 10Y*: 6.37%

QDF

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 1.09%
• YTD: 8.98%
• 6M: 9.09%
• 1Y: 24.82%
• 3Y*: 18.35%
• 5Y*: 11.54%
• 10Y*: 12.02%

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

EEMV vs. QDF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EEMV iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF	13.43%	13.45%	7.98%	7.75%	-13.94%	5.05%	6.90%	7.83%	-5.81%	27.28%
QDF FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund	8.98%	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 0.70, 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	0.70
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 20, 2012	0.64

The correlation between EEMV and QDF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMV vs. QDF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EEMV	QDF
Technology	28.9%	38.3%
Financial Services	17.7%	13.2%
Communication Services	11.2%	6.8%
Consumer Defensive	6.8%	5.5%
Industrials	6.7%	8.9%
Healthcare	6.2%	8.3%
Consumer Cyclical	5.0%	6.9%
Utilities	4.6%	2.1%
Energy	3.4%	0.9%
Basic Materials	3.1%	1.6%
Real Estate	0.5%	5.4%

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: 50
EEMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
EEMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
EEMV Omega Ratio Rank: 53
EEMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
EEMV Martin Ratio Rank: 52

QDF

QDF Risk / Return Rank: 73
QDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
QDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
QDF Omega Ratio Rank: 72
QDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
QDF Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

	EEMV	QDF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	2.12	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.04	2.95	-0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.39	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.25	3.16	-0.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.21	13.73	-5.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EEMV vs. QDF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMV Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is lower than the QDF Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EEMV	QDF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.48	2.12	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	0.74	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.46	0.69	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	0.78	-0.40

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEMV	QDF	Difference
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	-4.70%	-2.10%	-2.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.97%	-3.64%	-4.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.52%	1.81%	+0.71%

Volatility

EEMV vs. QDF - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) has a higher volatility of 7.37% compared to FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) at 3.21%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	EEMV	QDF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.37%	3.21%	+4.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.79%	9.01%	+3.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.01%	11.78%	+2.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.06%	15.63%	-3.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.94%	17.41%	-3.47%

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 2.33%, more than QDF's 1.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMV iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF	2.33%	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	1.52%	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

Can I hold both EEMV and QDF in my portfolio?

EEMV and QDF have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EEMV or QDF?

EEMV has higher volatility (7.37%) compared to QDF (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMV dropped -31.56% vs QDF's -36.67%.

Which ETF is better, EEMV or QDF?

On 10-year performance, QDF leads with 12.02% vs 6.37% for EEMV. On fees, EEMV is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, QDF has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEMV or QDF?

Over the 10-year period, QDF has performed better with a 12.02% return vs 6.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEMV or QDF?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EEMV or QDF?

EEMV has the higher dividend yield at 2.33%, compared with 1.52% for QDF.

What is the main difference between EEMV and QDF?

EEMV is categorized as Asia Pacific 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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 1.48), 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.