EMC vs. BKEM

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

EMC (Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF) and BKEM (BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. EMC is actively managed, while BKEM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMC returned 13.10%/yr vs 19.15%/yr for BKEM. Their correlation of 0.93 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.11%/yr for BKEM.

Performance

EMC vs. BKEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMC achieves a 17.02% return, which is significantly lower than BKEM's 19.61% return.

EMC

• 1D: 1.19%
• 1M: -1.41%
• 6M: 8.04%
• YTD: 17.02%
• 1Y: 25.57%
• 3Y*: 13.10%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.64%

BKEM

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -2.18%
• 6M: 9.90%
• YTD: 19.61%
• 1Y: 36.20%
• 3Y*: 19.15%
• 5Y*: 6.90%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.53%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$481.37K	$317.95K	$245.58K
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	$303.53K	$204.31K	$229.90K

EMC vs. BKEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	17.02%	18.91%	3.75%	1.62%
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	19.61%	30.55%	7.53%	7.04%

Correlation

The correlation between EMC and BKEM is 0.95, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023	0.93

The correlation between EMC and BKEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMC vs. BKEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMC	BKEM
Technology	44.9%	44.5%
Financial Services	21.4%	17.5%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	7.7%
Communication Services	7.4%	5.8%
Industrials	6.1%	7.6%
Basic Materials	3.1%	5.4%
Energy	3.0%	3.1%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	2.6%
Healthcare	2.0%	2.7%
Real Estate	1.4%	1.1%
Utilities	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

EMC vs. BKEM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EMC

EMC Risk / Return Rank: 42
EMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
EMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
EMC Omega Ratio Rank: 40
EMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
EMC Martin Ratio Rank: 45

BKEM

BKEM Risk / Return Rank: 64
BKEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BKEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
BKEM Omega Ratio Rank: 64
BKEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
BKEM Martin Ratio Rank: 64

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

EMC vs. BKEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM). 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.

	EMC	BKEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	1.53	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	2.05	-0.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.28	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.85	2.62	-0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.44	8.01	-2.57

EMC vs. BKEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMC Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is lower than the BKEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMC and BKEM, 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

EMC vs. BKEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMC drawdown since its inception was -18.38%, smaller than the maximum BKEM drawdown of -39.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMC and BKEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMC	BKEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.38%	-39.48%	+21.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.89%	-13.91%	+0.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.38%	-18.38%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.28%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.19%	-9.43%	+1.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.23%	-15.75%	+11.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.71%	4.53%	+0.18%

Volatility

EMC vs. BKEM - Volatility Comparison

Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) have volatilities of 9.28% and 9.11%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMC	BKEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.28%	9.11%	+0.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.22%	21.78%	+0.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.58%	23.88%	+0.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.72%	19.61%	+0.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.72%	19.75%	-0.03%

EMC vs. BKEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than BKEM's 0.11% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMC vs. BKEM - Dividend Comparison

EMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, less than BKEM's 1.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.96%	2.25%	2.76%	3.02%	3.15%	2.22%	1.78%
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	0.58%	0.78%	1.13%	0.89%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMC and BKEM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, EMC and BKEM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, EMC or BKEM?

EMC has higher volatility (9.28%) compared to BKEM (9.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMC dropped -18.38% vs BKEM's -39.48%.

Which ETF is better, EMC or BKEM?

On 3-year performance, BKEM leads with 19.15% vs 13.10% for EMC. On fees, BKEM is cheaper at 0.11% per year. On volatility, BKEM has been the lower-risk option at 9.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMC or BKEM?

Over the 3-year period, BKEM has performed better with a 19.15% return vs 13.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMC or BKEM?

BKEM is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMC or BKEM?

BKEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.96%, compared with 0.58% for EMC.

What is the main difference between EMC and BKEM?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and BNY Mellon. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMC and 0.11% for BKEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BKEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs 1.05), 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.