EMEQ vs. VEA

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and VEA (Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMEQ is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Nomura, while VEA is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the FTSE Developed All Cap ex US Index. EMEQ is actively managed, while VEA is passively managed. Over the past year, EMEQ returned 141.42% vs 31.41% for VEA. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMEQ charges 0.86%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for VEA.

Performance

EMEQ vs. VEA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) and Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (VEA). 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 VEA's 14.73% return.

EMEQ

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

VEA

• 1D: 0.34%
• 1M: 3.58%
• YTD: 14.73%
• 6M: 16.65%
• 1Y: 31.41%
• 3Y*: 19.03%
• 5Y*: 9.51%
• 10Y*: 10.72%

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

EMEQ vs. VEA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	70.13%	69.78%	-0.73%
VEA Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF	14.73%	35.16%	-5.16%

Correlation

The correlation between EMEQ and VEA is 0.74, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.71

The correlation between EMEQ and VEA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMEQ vs. VEA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMEQ	VEA
Financial Services	6.8%	23.3%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	7.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.8%	5.6%
Communication Services	2.4%	3.4%
Healthcare	1.4%	8.2%
Basic Materials	1.3%	7.5%
Energy	1.3%	5.4%
Technology	1.1%	13.8%
Utilities	0.9%	3.3%
Industrials	0.3%	19.2%
Real Estate	-	2.7%

Return for Risk

EMEQ vs. VEA — 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

VEA

VEA Risk / Return Rank: 62
VEA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
VEA Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
VEA Omega Ratio Rank: 63
VEA Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
VEA Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. VEA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) and Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (VEA). 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	VEA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.89	1.81	+2.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.03	2.50	+1.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	1.33	+0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.71	2.58	+5.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	28.78	9.92	+18.86

EMEQ vs. VEA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMEQ Sharpe Ratio is 3.89, which is higher than the VEA Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMEQ and VEA, 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. VEA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMEQ drawdown since its inception was -19.99%, smaller than the maximum VEA drawdown of -60.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMEQ and VEA.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMEQ	VEA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.99%	-60.68%	+40.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.91%	-11.63%	-6.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.45%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.71%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.69%	-1.06%	-4.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.05%	-13.28%	+9.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.79%	3.02%	+1.77%

Volatility

EMEQ vs. VEA - Volatility Comparison

Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a higher volatility of 19.34% compared to Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (VEA) at 6.84%. This indicates that EMEQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VEA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMEQ	VEA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	19.34%	6.84%	+12.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	32.54%	14.38%	+18.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	35.48%	16.58%	+18.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	31.87%	16.72%	+15.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.87%	17.40%	+14.47%

EMEQ vs. VEA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMEQ has a 0.86% expense ratio, which is higher than VEA's 0.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMEQ vs. VEA - Dividend Comparison

EMEQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.62%, less than VEA's 2.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VEA Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF	2.62%	3.22%	3.35%	3.15%	2.91%	3.16%	2.04%	3.04%	3.35%	2.77%	3.05%	2.92%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMEQ and VEA in my portfolio?

EMEQ and VEA have a correlation of 0.74, 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 VEA?

EMEQ has higher volatility (19.34%) compared to VEA (6.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMEQ dropped -19.99% vs VEA's -60.68%.

Which ETF is better, EMEQ or VEA?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 141.42% vs 31.41% for VEA. On fees, VEA is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, VEA has been the lower-risk option at 6.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMEQ or VEA?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 141.42% return vs 31.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMEQ or VEA?

VEA is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

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

VEA has the higher dividend yield at 2.62%, compared with 1.62% for EMEQ.

What is the main difference between EMEQ and VEA?

EMEQ is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while VEA is Foreign Large Cap Equities. They also come from different issuers: Nomura and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.86% for EMEQ and 0.03% for VEA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.89 vs 1.81), 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.