PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMES vs. EMEQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMES vs. EMEQ - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMES achieves a 28.30% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 78.09% return.


EMES

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

EMEQ

1D
-1.28%
1M
23.68%
YTD
78.09%
6M
88.05%
1Y
166.45%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMES vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between EMES and EMEQ is 0.89, 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

0.89

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2025

0.88

The correlation between EMES and EMEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMES vs. EMEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EMES
EMEQ

Technology

42.9%
56.6%

Industrials

16.3%
5.8%

Consumer Cyclical

14.8%
8.2%

Financial Services

14.2%
11.1%

Communication Services

4.7%
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

3.1%
2.9%

Real Estate

3.0%

-

Healthcare

1.1%
1.0%

Basic Materials

-

1.8%

Energy

-

7.0%

Utilities

-

-

Technology

EMES
42.9%
EMEQ
56.6%

Industrials

EMES
16.3%
EMEQ
5.8%

Consumer Cyclical

EMES
14.8%
EMEQ
8.2%

Financial Services

EMES
14.2%
EMEQ
11.1%

Communication Services

EMES
4.7%
EMEQ
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

EMES
3.1%
EMEQ
2.9%

Real Estate

EMES
3.0%
EMEQ

-

Healthcare

EMES
1.1%
EMEQ
1.0%

Basic Materials

EMES

-

EMEQ
1.8%

Energy

EMES

-

EMEQ
7.0%

Utilities

EMES

-

EMEQ

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

EMES vs. EMEQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMES
EMES Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
EMES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMES Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMES Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
EMES Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMES Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank

EMEQ
EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 9696
Overall Rank
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9898
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 9595
Omega Ratio Rank
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
Martin Ratio Rank
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. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). 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.


EMESEMEQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.97

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.27

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.75

-0.34

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.62

9.35

-5.73

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.07

37.42

-23.35

EMES vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMES Sharpe Ratio is 2.25, which is lower than the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 5.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMES and EMEQ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EMESEMEQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.25

5.22

-2.97

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

2.06

2.95

-0.89

Drawdowns

EMES vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMES drawdown since its inception was -12.98%, smaller than the maximum EMEQ drawdown of -19.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMES and EMEQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMESEMEQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-12.98%

-19.99%

+7.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.98%

-17.91%

+4.93%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.25%

-1.28%

+0.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.07%

-3.97%

+1.90%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.34%

4.47%

-1.13%

Volatility

EMES vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) is 8.70%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 15.18%. This indicates that EMES experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMESEMEQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.70%

15.18%

-6.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.31%

28.51%

-10.20%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.89%

32.10%

-11.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.56%

29.97%

-9.41%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.56%

29.97%

-9.41%

EMES vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMES has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMES vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

EMES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than EMEQ's 1.55% yield.


PositionTTM20252024
EMEQ
Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF
1.55%2.76%0.84%
EMES
Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF
0.42%0.53%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMES and EMEQ have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EMEQ has higher volatility (15.18%) compared to EMES (8.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMES dropped -12.98% vs EMEQ's -19.99%.

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 166.45% vs 46.81% for EMES. On fees, EMES is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, EMES has been the lower-risk option at 8.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 166.45% return vs 46.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EMES is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

EMEQ has the higher dividend yield at 1.55%, compared with 0.42% for EMES.

They also come from different issuers: Harbor and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EMES and 0.86% for EMEQ.

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.22 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMES and EMEQ

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer