EMDV vs. BDVG

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

EMDV (ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF) and BDVG (iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMDV is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Masters Index, while BDVG is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by iMGP. EMDV is passively managed, while BDVG is actively managed. Over the past year, EMDV returned 6.45% vs 22.96% for BDVG. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMDV charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for BDVG.

Performance

EMDV vs. BDVG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV) and iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF (BDVG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMDV achieves a -0.55% return, which is significantly lower than BDVG's 12.14% return.

EMDV

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: -1.09%
• YTD: -0.55%
• 6M: -1.04%
• 1Y: 6.45%
• 3Y*: 2.73%
• 5Y*: -3.06%
• 10Y*: 2.58%

BDVG

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: 1.58%
• YTD: 12.14%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: 22.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMDV vs. BDVG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMDV ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF	-0.55%	11.90%	0.06%	-3.31%
BDVG iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF	12.14%	13.81%	11.75%	3.42%

Correlation

The correlation between EMDV and BDVG is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023	0.41

EMDV vs. BDVG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMDV	BDVG
Technology	24.7%	18.2%
Financial Services	23.4%	17.0%
Consumer Defensive	15.8%	11.6%
Utilities	8.2%	3.1%
Healthcare	7.7%	9.8%
Consumer Cyclical	6.5%	6.2%
Industrials	5.9%	18.6%
Communication Services	5.7%	0.6%
Basic Materials	2.1%	3.7%
Energy	-	10.5%
Real Estate	-	1.3%

Return for Risk

EMDV vs. BDVG — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMDV

EMDV Risk / Return Rank: 18
EMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
EMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
EMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 16
EMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
EMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 21

BDVG

BDVG Risk / Return Rank: 74
BDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
BDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
BDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 73
BDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
BDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

EMDV vs. BDVG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV) and iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF (BDVG). 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.

	EMDV	BDVG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.57	2.29	-1.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.87	3.33	-2.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.41	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.89	3.44	-2.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.57	13.10	-10.54

EMDV vs. BDVG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMDV Sharpe Ratio is 0.57, which is lower than the BDVG Sharpe Ratio of 2.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMDV and BDVG, 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

EMDV vs. BDVG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMDV drawdown since its inception was -39.20%, which is greater than BDVG's maximum drawdown of -14.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMDV and BDVG.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMDV	BDVG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.20%	-14.46%	-24.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.24%	-6.70%	-0.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.71%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.20%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.25%	-1.50%	-14.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.55%	-2.32%	-11.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.52%	1.76%	+0.76%

Volatility

EMDV vs. BDVG - Volatility Comparison

ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV) has a higher volatility of 4.07% compared to iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF (BDVG) at 3.80%. This indicates that EMDV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BDVG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMDV	BDVG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.07%	3.80%	+0.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.67%	7.78%	+1.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.48%	10.09%	+1.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.45%	11.95%	+3.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.19%	11.95%	+6.24%

EMDV vs. BDVG - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMDV has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than BDVG's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMDV vs. BDVG - Dividend Comparison

EMDV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, more than BDVG's 1.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BDVG iMGP Berkshire Dividend Growth ETF	1.53%	1.75%	1.69%	0.95%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EMDV ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF	2.45%	2.46%	2.79%	1.88%	3.68%	2.12%	3.12%	2.38%	1.27%	2.09%	2.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMDV and BDVG in my portfolio?

EMDV and BDVG have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMDV or BDVG?

EMDV has higher volatility (4.07%) compared to BDVG (3.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMDV dropped -39.20% vs BDVG's -14.46%.

Which ETF is better, EMDV or BDVG?

On 1-year performance, BDVG leads with 22.96% vs 6.45% for EMDV. On fees, BDVG is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, BDVG has been the lower-risk option at 3.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMDV or BDVG?

Over the 1-year period, BDVG has performed better with a 22.96% return vs 6.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMDV or BDVG?

BDVG is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for EMDV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMDV or BDVG?

EMDV has the higher dividend yield at 2.45%, compared with 1.53% for BDVG.

What is the main difference between EMDV and BDVG?

EMDV is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while BDVG is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and iMGP. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for EMDV and 0.55% for BDVG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BDVG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.29 vs 0.57), 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.