EMEQ vs. FTHF

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and FTHF (First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. EMEQ is actively managed, while FTHF is passively managed. Over the past year, EMEQ returned 113.64% vs 76.97% for FTHF. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMEQ charges 0.86%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for FTHF.

Performance

EMEQ vs. FTHF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) and First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMEQ achieves a 55.77% return, which is significantly higher than FTHF's 35.77% return.

EMEQ

• 1D: 1.31%
• 1M: -7.03%
• 6M: 33.20%
• YTD: 55.77%
• 1Y: 113.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 65.83%

FTHF

• 1D: 0.81%
• 1M: -4.48%
• 6M: 18.25%
• YTD: 35.77%
• 1Y: 76.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 38.11%

*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)
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$8.80M	$8.80M	$11.41M
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF	$312.20K	$492.12K	$543.01K

EMEQ vs. FTHF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	55.77%	69.78%	-0.73%
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF	35.77%	65.30%	-9.15%

Correlation

The correlation between EMEQ and FTHF is 0.90, 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.	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.85

The correlation between EMEQ and FTHF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMEQ vs. FTHF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMEQ	FTHF
Technology	58.0%	50.9%
Financial Services	11.6%	25.0%
Energy	7.2%	4.6%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	0.6%
Industrials	6.2%	5.4%
Communication Services	5.5%	0.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	3.0%
Basic Materials	1.6%	7.5%
Healthcare	1.0%	0.5%
Utilities	0.9%	1.8%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

EMEQ vs. FTHF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 92
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 91
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

FTHF

FTHF Risk / Return Rank: 86
FTHF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FTHF Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
FTHF Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FTHF Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FTHF Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

EMEQ vs. FTHF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) and First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF). 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.

	EMEQ	FTHF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.83	2.26	+0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	2.74	+0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.39	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.35	3.68	+0.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.65	12.69	+2.96

EMEQ vs. FTHF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMEQ Sharpe Ratio is 2.83, which is comparable to the FTHF Sharpe Ratio of 2.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMEQ and FTHF, 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

EMEQ vs. FTHF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMEQ drawdown since its inception was -26.25%, which is greater than FTHF's maximum drawdown of -21.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMEQ and FTHF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMEQ	FTHF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.25%	-21.05%	-5.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.25%	-21.05%	-5.20%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.83%	-15.06%	-4.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.70%	-4.54%	-0.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.29%	6.09%	+1.20%

Volatility

EMEQ vs. FTHF - Volatility Comparison

Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a higher volatility of 14.69% compared to First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF) at 13.92%. This indicates that EMEQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FTHF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMEQ	FTHF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.69%	13.92%	+0.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	37.55%	31.87%	+5.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.45%	34.32%	+6.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.13%	27.88%	+6.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.13%	27.88%	+6.25%

EMEQ vs. FTHF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMEQ has a 0.86% expense ratio, which is higher than FTHF's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMEQ vs. FTHF - Dividend Comparison

EMEQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, less than FTHF's 3.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.77%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF	3.36%	4.40%	3.34%	0.51%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMEQ and FTHF in my portfolio?

EMEQ and FTHF have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMEQ or FTHF?

EMEQ has higher volatility (14.69%) compared to FTHF (13.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMEQ dropped -26.25% vs FTHF's -21.05%.

Which ETF is better, EMEQ or FTHF?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 113.64% vs 76.97% for FTHF. On fees, FTHF is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, FTHF has been the lower-risk option at 13.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMEQ or FTHF?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 113.64% return vs 76.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMEQ or FTHF?

FTHF is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

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

FTHF has the higher dividend yield at 3.36%, compared with 1.77% for EMEQ.

What is the main difference between EMEQ and FTHF?

They also come from different issuers: Nomura and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.86% for EMEQ and 0.75% for FTHF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 2.26), 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.