PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EEMX vs. FPA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EEMX vs. FPA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Fossil Fuel Free ETF (EEMX) and First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMX achieves a 27.49% return, which is significantly lower than FPA's 49.31% return.


EEMX

1D
-1.13%
1M
6.59%
YTD
27.49%
6M
30.63%
1Y
54.54%
3Y*
24.62%
5Y*
7.82%
10Y*

FPA

1D
-1.43%
1M
5.58%
YTD
49.31%
6M
48.83%
1Y
76.39%
3Y*
32.24%
5Y*
12.76%
10Y*
10.95%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMX vs. FPA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMX
SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Fossil Fuel Free ETF
27.49%35.23%7.22%9.80%-19.75%-3.57%19.55%18.56%-16.76%38.46%
FPA
First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund
49.31%43.16%3.95%9.97%-14.55%2.98%13.43%8.91%-21.91%35.81%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMX and FPA is 0.74, 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

0.74

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

0.71

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

0.64

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 26, 2016

0.62

The correlation between EEMX and FPA shifts across timeframes, from 0.62 (all time) to 0.74 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EEMX vs. FPA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EEMX
FPA

Technology

38.7%
16.1%

Financial Services

20.7%
9.6%

Consumer Cyclical

10.1%
8.8%

Industrials

7.6%
37.1%

Communication Services

7.3%
2.6%

Basic Materials

6.3%
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

3.2%
3.2%

Healthcare

3.0%
1.0%

Utilities

1.5%
5.7%

Real Estate

1.1%
6.9%

Energy

0.5%
6.7%

Technology

EEMX
38.7%
FPA
16.1%

Financial Services

EEMX
20.7%
FPA
9.6%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMX
10.1%
FPA
8.8%

Industrials

EEMX
7.6%
FPA
37.1%

Communication Services

EEMX
7.3%
FPA
2.6%

Basic Materials

EEMX
6.3%
FPA
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

EEMX
3.2%
FPA
3.2%

Healthcare

EEMX
3.0%
FPA
1.0%

Utilities

EEMX
1.5%
FPA
5.7%

Real Estate

EEMX
1.1%
FPA
6.9%

Energy

EEMX
0.5%
FPA
6.7%

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

EEMX vs. FPA — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMX
EEMX Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
EEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank

FPA
FPA Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
FPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8989
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
FPA Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
FPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
FPA Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
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.

EEMX vs. FPA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Fossil Fuel Free ETF (EEMX) and First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA). 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.


EEMXFPADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.36

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.28

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.50

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.95

5.00

-1.05

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.59

18.44

-2.85

EEMX vs. FPA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMX Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is comparable to the FPA Sharpe Ratio of 3.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMX and FPA, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EEMXFPADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.64

3.01

-0.36

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.41

0.53

-0.12

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.47

0.33

+0.15

Drawdowns

EEMX vs. FPA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMX drawdown since its inception was -39.90%, smaller than the maximum FPA drawdown of -52.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMX and FPA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EEMXFPADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.90%

-52.91%

+13.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.89%

-15.37%

+1.48%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.64%

-20.66%

+3.02%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.08%

-35.21%

-1.87%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-52.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.43%

-5.49%

+3.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.73%

-13.48%

-1.25%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.51%

4.16%

-0.65%

Volatility

EEMX vs. FPA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Fossil Fuel Free ETF (EEMX) is 8.86%, while First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) has a volatility of 12.88%. This indicates that EEMX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FPA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EEMXFPADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.86%

12.88%

-4.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.24%

21.98%

-3.74%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.78%

25.60%

-4.82%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.15%

23.99%

-4.84%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.22%

22.39%

-2.17%

EEMX vs. FPA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMX has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than FPA's 0.80% expense ratio.


Dividends

EEMX vs. FPA - Dividend Comparison

EEMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, less than FPA's 3.57% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMX
SPDR MSCI Emerging Markets Fossil Fuel Free ETF
1.77%2.28%2.26%2.20%2.38%1.72%1.42%2.57%2.41%2.45%0.15%0.00%
FPA
First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund
3.57%4.71%3.40%3.02%4.22%5.12%1.59%3.90%2.81%3.15%2.42%1.74%

Frequently Asked Questions


EEMX and FPA have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FPA has higher volatility (12.88%) compared to EEMX (8.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMX dropped -39.90% vs FPA's -52.91%.

On 5-year performance, FPA leads with 12.76% vs 7.82% for EEMX. On fees, EEMX is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, EEMX has been the lower-risk option at 8.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FPA has performed better with a 12.76% return vs 7.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EEMX is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FPA.

FPA has the higher dividend yield at 3.57%, compared with 1.77% for EEMX.

EEMX tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex Fossil Fuels Index, while FPA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for EEMX and 0.80% for FPA.

FPA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.01 vs 2.64), 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 EEMX and FPA

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