EMCS vs. EMEQ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EMCS (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets Climate Selection ETF) and EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. EMCS is passively managed, while EMEQ is actively managed. Over the past year, EMCS returned 45.63% vs 110.88% for EMEQ. Their correlation of 0.91 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMCS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for EMEQ.

Performance

EMCS vs. EMEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets Climate Selection ETF (EMCS) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMCS achieves a 24.35% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 53.76% return.

EMCS

• 1D: 0.81%
• 1M: -0.73%
• 6M: 14.38%
• YTD: 24.35%
• 1Y: 45.63%
• 3Y*: 22.52%
• 5Y*: 8.00%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.33%

EMEQ

• 1D: 1.33%
• 1M: -8.23%
• 6M: 30.45%
• YTD: 53.76%
• 1Y: 110.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 65.06%

*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)
EMCS Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets Climate Selection ETF	$164.87K	$2.68M	$967.26K
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$8.75M	$9.16M	$11.52M

EMCS vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMCS Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets Climate Selection ETF	24.35%	38.71%	0.62%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	53.76%	69.78%	-0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between EMCS and EMEQ is 0.93, 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.	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.91

The correlation between EMCS and EMEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMCS vs. EMEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMCS	EMEQ
Technology	51.4%	58.0%
Financial Services	27.3%	11.6%
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	6.2%
Communication Services	7.5%	5.5%
Basic Materials	2.3%	1.6%
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Industrials	1.2%	6.2%
Energy	1.1%	7.2%
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	2.7%
Healthcare	0.0%	1.0%
Utilities	0.0%	0.9%

Return for Risk

EMCS vs. EMEQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMCS

EMCS Risk / Return Rank: 73
EMCS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
EMCS Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
EMCS Omega Ratio Rank: 73
EMCS Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
EMCS Martin Ratio Rank: 73

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 91
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 90
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

EMCS vs. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets Climate Selection ETF (EMCS) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). 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.

	EMCS	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.64	2.69	-1.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.20	2.99	-0.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.43	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.92	4.13	-1.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.14	15.08	-5.95

EMCS vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMCS Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is lower than the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMCS and EMEQ, 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

EMCS vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMCS drawdown since its inception was -44.86%, which is greater than EMEQ's maximum drawdown of -26.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMCS and EMEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMCS	EMEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.86%	-26.25%	-18.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.25%	-26.25%	+11.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.73%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.62%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.17%	-20.86%	+10.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.41%	-4.67%	-11.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.87%	7.18%	-2.31%

Volatility

EMCS vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets Climate Selection ETF (EMCS) is 10.10%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 14.87%. This indicates that EMCS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMCS	EMEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.10%	14.87%	-4.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.90%	37.54%	-12.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.26%	40.39%	-13.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.68%	34.15%	-12.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.23%	34.15%	-11.92%

EMCS vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMCS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMCS vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

EMCS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, less than EMEQ's 1.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EMCS Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets Climate Selection ETF	1.53%	1.66%	0.67%	3.07%	2.26%	1.46%	1.40%	3.56%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.79%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMCS and EMEQ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, EMCS and EMEQ 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, EMCS or EMEQ?

EMEQ has higher volatility (14.87%) compared to EMCS (10.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMCS dropped -44.86% vs EMEQ's -26.25%.

Which ETF is better, EMCS or EMEQ?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 110.88% vs 45.63% for EMCS. On fees, EMCS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, EMCS has been the lower-risk option at 10.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMCS or EMEQ?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 110.88% return vs 45.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMCS or EMEQ?

EMCS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMCS or EMEQ?

EMEQ has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 1.53% for EMCS.

What is the main difference between EMCS and EMEQ?

They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for EMCS and 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.69 vs 1.64), 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.