EMEQ vs. ROKT

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and ROKT (SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMEQ is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Nomura, while ROKT is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Kensho Final Frontiers Index. EMEQ is actively managed, while ROKT is passively managed. Over the past year, EMEQ returned 141.42% vs 96.95% for ROKT. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMEQ charges 0.86%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for ROKT.

Performance

EMEQ vs. ROKT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) and SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF (ROKT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMEQ achieves a 70.13% return, which is significantly higher than ROKT's 41.13% return.

EMEQ

• 1D: 0.81%
• 1M: 10.20%
• YTD: 70.13%
• 6M: 81.37%
• 1Y: 141.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ROKT

• 1D: -3.50%
• 1M: 2.08%
• YTD: 41.13%
• 6M: 44.16%
• 1Y: 96.95%
• 3Y*: 41.87%
• 5Y*: 23.65%
• 10Y*: —

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

EMEQ vs. ROKT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	70.13%	69.78%	-0.73%
ROKT SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF	41.13%	50.56%	18.61%

Correlation

The correlation between EMEQ and ROKT is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.48

EMEQ vs. ROKT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMEQ	ROKT
Financial Services	6.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.8%	-
Communication Services	2.4%	5.8%
Healthcare	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.3%	-
Energy	1.3%	5.7%
Technology	1.1%	20.1%
Utilities	0.9%	-
Industrials	0.3%	68.4%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

EMEQ vs. ROKT — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 95
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 94
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 95

ROKT

ROKT Risk / Return Rank: 92
ROKT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
ROKT Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
ROKT Omega Ratio Rank: 88
ROKT Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
ROKT Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

EMEQ vs. ROKT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) and SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF (ROKT). 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	ROKT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.89	3.15	+0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.03	3.74	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	1.48	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.71	6.38	+1.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	28.78	26.23	+2.55

EMEQ vs. ROKT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMEQ Sharpe Ratio is 3.89, which is comparable to the ROKT Sharpe Ratio of 3.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMEQ and ROKT, 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. ROKT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMEQ drawdown since its inception was -19.99%, smaller than the maximum ROKT drawdown of -43.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMEQ and ROKT.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMEQ	ROKT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.99%	-43.16%	+23.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.91%	-15.27%	-2.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.46%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.46%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.69%	-12.20%	+6.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.05%	-6.77%	+2.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.79%	3.71%	+1.08%

Volatility

EMEQ vs. ROKT - Volatility Comparison

Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a higher volatility of 19.34% compared to SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF (ROKT) at 16.11%. This indicates that EMEQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ROKT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMEQ	ROKT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	19.34%	16.11%	+3.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.54%	27.24%	+5.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.48%	30.97%	+4.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.87%	23.32%	+8.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.87%	25.42%	+6.45%

EMEQ vs. ROKT - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMEQ has a 0.86% expense ratio, which is higher than ROKT's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMEQ vs. ROKT - Dividend Comparison

EMEQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.62%, more than ROKT's 0.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.62%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ROKT SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF	0.28%	0.41%	0.57%	0.62%	0.54%	1.79%	0.48%	0.74%	0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMEQ and ROKT in my portfolio?

EMEQ and ROKT have a correlation of 0.50, 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 ROKT?

EMEQ has higher volatility (19.34%) compared to ROKT (16.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMEQ dropped -19.99% vs ROKT's -43.16%.

Which ETF is better, EMEQ or ROKT?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 141.42% vs 96.95% for ROKT. On fees, ROKT is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, ROKT has been the lower-risk option at 16.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMEQ or ROKT?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 141.42% return vs 96.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMEQ or ROKT?

ROKT is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

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

EMEQ has the higher dividend yield at 1.62%, compared with 0.28% for ROKT.

What is the main difference between EMEQ and ROKT?

EMEQ is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while ROKT is Industrials Equities. They also come from different issuers: Nomura and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.86% for EMEQ and 0.45% for ROKT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.89 vs 3.15), 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.