EMES vs. BILS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMES (Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF) and BILS (SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMES is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Harbor, while BILS is a Ultrashort Bond fund tracking the Bloomberg 3-12 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. EMES is actively managed, while BILS is passively managed. Over the past year, EMES returned 46.81% vs 3.90% for BILS. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. EMES charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BILS.

Performance

EMES vs. BILS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) and SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMES achieves a 28.30% return, which is significantly higher than BILS's 1.40% return.

EMES

• 1D: -1.25%
• 1M: 5.92%
• YTD: 28.30%
• 6M: 29.99%
• 1Y: 46.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BILS

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.40%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 3.90%
• 3Y*: 4.66%
• 5Y*: 3.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

EMES vs. BILS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	28.30%	12.63%
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF	1.40%	2.70%

Correlation

The correlation between EMES and BILS is -0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2025	-0.08

Return for Risk

EMES vs. BILS — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMES

EMES Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMES Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
EMES Omega Ratio Rank: 70
EMES Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
EMES Martin Ratio Rank: 75

BILS

BILS Risk / Return Rank: 100
BILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BILS Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

EMES vs. BILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) and SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS). 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.

	EMES	BILS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.25	16.80	-14.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.98	100.82	-97.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	42.08	-40.66
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.62	129.91	-126.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.07	1,442.41	-1,428.34
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMES vs. BILS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMES Sharpe Ratio is 2.25, which is lower than the BILS Sharpe Ratio of 16.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMES and BILS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMES	BILS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.25	16.80	-14.54
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	10.79	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.06	9.79	-7.73

Drawdowns

EMES vs. BILS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMES drawdown since its inception was -12.98%, which is greater than BILS's maximum drawdown of -0.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMES and BILS.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMES	BILS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.98%	-0.41%	-12.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.98%	-0.03%	-12.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.04%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-0.01%	-1.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.07%	-0.04%	-2.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.34%	0.00%	+3.34%

Volatility

EMES vs. BILS - Volatility Comparison

Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) has a higher volatility of 8.70% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS) at 0.06%. This indicates that EMES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMES	BILS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.70%	0.06%	+8.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.31%	0.14%	+18.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.89%	0.23%	+20.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.56%	0.31%	+20.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.56%	0.30%	+20.26%

EMES vs. BILS - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMES has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than BILS's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMES vs. BILS - Dividend Comparison

EMES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than BILS's 3.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BILS SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF	3.81%	4.08%	5.01%	4.98%	1.61%
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	0.42%	0.53%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMES and BILS in my portfolio?

EMES and BILS have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMES or BILS?

EMES has higher volatility (8.70%) compared to BILS (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMES dropped -12.98% vs BILS's -0.41%.

Which ETF is better, EMES or BILS?

On 1-year performance, EMES leads with 46.81% vs 3.90% for BILS. On fees, BILS is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMES or BILS?

Over the 1-year period, EMES has performed better with a 46.81% return vs 3.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMES or BILS?

BILS is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for EMES.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMES or BILS?

BILS has the higher dividend yield at 3.81%, compared with 0.42% for EMES.

What is the main difference between EMES and BILS?

EMES is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while BILS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Harbor and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EMES and 0.14% for BILS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.80 vs 2.25), 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.