EMC vs. OAEM

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

EMC (Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF) and OAEM (OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMC returned 13.10%/yr vs 19.47%/yr for OAEM. Their correlation of 0.84 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMC charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for OAEM.

Performance

EMC vs. OAEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) and OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF (OAEM). 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 OAEM's 28.09% 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%

OAEM

• 1D: 1.23%
• 1M: -1.68%
• 6M: 15.61%
• YTD: 28.09%
• 1Y: 45.68%
• 3Y*: 19.47%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.76%

*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)
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	$303.53K	$204.31K	$229.90K
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	$686.79K	$671.79K	$1.20M

EMC vs. OAEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	17.02%	18.91%	3.75%	1.62%
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	28.09%	26.67%	0.43%	10.11%

Correlation

The correlation between EMC and OAEM is 0.86, 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.	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023	0.84

The correlation between EMC and OAEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMC vs. OAEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMC	OAEM
Technology	44.9%	45.0%
Financial Services	21.4%	15.7%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	5.1%
Communication Services	7.4%	1.3%
Industrials	6.1%	15.8%
Basic Materials	3.1%	7.1%
Energy	3.0%	3.1%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	2.1%
Healthcare	2.0%	-
Real Estate	1.4%	3.9%
Utilities	-	0.9%

Return for Risk

EMC vs. OAEM — 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

OAEM

OAEM Risk / Return Rank: 69
OAEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
OAEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
OAEM Omega Ratio Rank: 67
OAEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
OAEM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. OAEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) and OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF (OAEM). 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	OAEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	1.67	-0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	2.17	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.31	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.85	3.04	-1.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.44	9.80	-4.36

EMC vs. OAEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMC Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is lower than the OAEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMC and OAEM, 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. OAEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMC drawdown since its inception was -18.38%, which is greater than OAEM's maximum drawdown of -17.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMC and OAEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMC	OAEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.38%	-17.05%	-1.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.89%	-15.09%	+1.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.38%	-17.05%	-1.33%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.19%	-9.27%	+1.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.23%	-3.98%	-0.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.71%	4.67%	+0.04%

Volatility

EMC vs. OAEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) is 9.28%, while OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF (OAEM) has a volatility of 10.63%. This indicates that EMC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than OAEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMC	OAEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.28%	10.63%	-1.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.22%	25.37%	-3.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.58%	27.47%	-2.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.72%	20.93%	-1.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.72%	20.93%	-1.21%

EMC vs. OAEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than OAEM's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMC vs. OAEM - Dividend Comparison

EMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, less than OAEM's 0.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	0.58%	0.78%	1.13%	0.89%	0.00%
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	0.60%	0.77%	0.91%	1.63%	0.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMC and OAEM in my portfolio?

EMC and OAEM 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, EMC or OAEM?

OAEM has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to EMC (9.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMC dropped -18.38% vs OAEM's -17.05%.

Which ETF is better, EMC or OAEM?

On 3-year performance, OAEM leads with 19.47% vs 13.10% for EMC. On fees, EMC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, EMC has been the lower-risk option at 9.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMC or OAEM?

Over the 3-year period, OAEM has performed better with a 19.47% 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 OAEM?

EMC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for OAEM.

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

OAEM has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.58% for EMC.

What is the main difference between EMC and OAEM?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Oneascent. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMC and 1.25% for OAEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

OAEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 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.