EMES vs. DGS

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

EMES (Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF) and DGS (WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. EMES is actively managed, while DGS is passively managed. Over the past year, EMES returned 49.02% vs 29.05% for DGS. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMES charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for DGS.

Performance

EMES vs. DGS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) and WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund (DGS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMES achieves a 29.92% return, which is significantly higher than DGS's 16.12% return.

EMES

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: 7.90%
• YTD: 29.92%
• 6M: 31.26%
• 1Y: 49.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DGS

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 3.58%
• YTD: 16.12%
• 6M: 17.73%
• 1Y: 29.05%
• 3Y*: 16.70%
• 5Y*: 8.34%
• 10Y*: 10.08%

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

EMES vs. DGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	29.92%	12.63%
DGS WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund	16.12%	12.61%

Correlation

The correlation between EMES and DGS is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2025	0.80

The correlation between EMES and DGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMES vs. DGS — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMES

EMES Risk / Return Rank: 72
EMES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMES Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
EMES Omega Ratio Rank: 71
EMES Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
EMES Martin Ratio Rank: 77

DGS

DGS Risk / Return Rank: 56
DGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
DGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
DGS Omega Ratio Rank: 55
DGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
DGS Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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. DGS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) and WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund (DGS). 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	DGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	1.88	+0.48
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	2.58	+0.52
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.34	+0.09
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.86	2.98	+0.89
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.03	10.03	+4.99
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. DGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMES Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is comparable to the DGS Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMES and DGS, 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	DGS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.36	1.88	+0.48
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.56	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.58	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.16	0.23	+1.92

Drawdowns

EMES vs. DGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMES drawdown since its inception was -12.98%, smaller than the maximum DGS drawdown of -61.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMES and DGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMES	DGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.98%	-61.83%	+48.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.98%	-10.06%	-2.92%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.31%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.86%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.08%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.03%	+0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.07%	-12.59%	+10.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.34%	2.98%	+0.36%

Volatility

EMES vs. DGS - Volatility Comparison

Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) has a higher volatility of 8.55% compared to WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund (DGS) at 5.04%. This indicates that EMES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMES	DGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.55%	5.04%	+3.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.26%	12.95%	+5.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.85%	15.50%	+5.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.55%	14.86%	+5.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.55%	17.31%	+3.24%

EMES vs. DGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMES has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than DGS's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMES vs. DGS - Dividend Comparison

EMES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.41%, less than DGS's 3.17% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DGS WisdomTree Emerging Markets SmallCap Dividend Fund	3.17%	3.45%	3.36%	4.55%	5.34%	3.98%	3.69%	3.95%	4.24%	2.81%	3.42%	3.28%
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	0.41%	0.53%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMES and DGS in my portfolio?

EMES and DGS have a correlation of 0.80, 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 DGS?

EMES has higher volatility (8.55%) compared to DGS (5.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMES dropped -12.98% vs DGS's -61.83%.

Which ETF is better, EMES or DGS?

On 1-year performance, EMES leads with 49.02% vs 29.05% for DGS. On fees, DGS is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, DGS has been the lower-risk option at 5.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMES or DGS?

Over the 1-year period, EMES has performed better with a 49.02% return vs 29.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMES or DGS?

DGS is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for EMES.

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

DGS has the higher dividend yield at 3.17%, compared with 0.41% for EMES.

What is the main difference between EMES and DGS?

They also come from different issuers: Harbor and WisdomTree. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EMES and 0.58% for DGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMES currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.88), 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.