EMES vs. HGER

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMES (Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF) and HGER (Harbor Commodity All-Weather Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMES is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Harbor, while HGER is a Commodities fund tracking the Quantix Commodity Index - Benchmark TR Net. EMES is actively managed, while HGER is passively managed. Over the past year, EMES returned 46.81% vs 41.90% for HGER. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. EMES charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for HGER.

Performance

EMES vs. HGER - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) and Harbor Commodity All-Weather Strategy ETF (HGER). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with EMES having a 28.30% return and HGER slightly lower at 28.12%.

EMES

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

HGER

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: -2.72%
• YTD: 28.12%
• 6M: 27.93%
• 1Y: 41.90%
• 3Y*: 21.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMES vs. HGER - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	28.30%	12.63%
HGER Harbor Commodity All-Weather Strategy ETF	28.12%	10.39%

Correlation

The correlation between EMES and HGER is -0.03, 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	-0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2025	-0.01

EMES vs. HGER - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMES	HGER
Technology	42.9%	-
Industrials	16.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	14.8%	-
Financial Services	14.2%	-
Communication Services	4.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	-
Real Estate	3.0%	-
Healthcare	1.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	102.4%
Energy	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

EMES vs. HGER — 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

HGER

HGER Risk / Return Rank: 78
HGER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
HGER Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
HGER Omega Ratio Rank: 76
HGER Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
HGER Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. HGER - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) and Harbor Commodity All-Weather Strategy ETF (HGER). 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	HGER	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.25	2.50	-0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.98	3.23	-0.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.46	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.62	5.20	-1.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.07	17.52	-3.45
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. HGER - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMES Sharpe Ratio is 2.25, which is comparable to the HGER Sharpe Ratio of 2.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMES and HGER, 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	HGER	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.25	2.50	-0.24
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.06	0.90	+1.16

Drawdowns

EMES vs. HGER - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMES drawdown since its inception was -12.98%, smaller than the maximum HGER drawdown of -23.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMES and HGER.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMES	HGER	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.98%	-23.31%	+10.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.98%	-8.09%	-4.89%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-8.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-4.99%	+3.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.07%	-7.66%	+5.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.34%	2.40%	+0.94%

Volatility

EMES vs. HGER - Volatility Comparison

Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) has a higher volatility of 8.70% compared to Harbor Commodity All-Weather Strategy ETF (HGER) at 4.02%. This indicates that EMES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than HGER based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMES	HGER	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.70%	4.02%	+4.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.31%	14.54%	+3.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.89%	16.87%	+4.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.56%	17.62%	+2.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.56%	17.62%	+2.94%

EMES vs. HGER - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMES has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than HGER's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMES vs. HGER - Dividend Comparison

EMES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than HGER's 5.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	0.42%	0.53%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HGER Harbor Commodity All-Weather Strategy ETF	5.53%	7.09%	3.28%	7.24%	0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMES and HGER in my portfolio?

EMES and HGER have a correlation of -0.03, 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 HGER?

EMES has higher volatility (8.70%) compared to HGER (4.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMES dropped -12.98% vs HGER's -23.31%.

Which ETF is better, EMES or HGER?

On 1-year performance, EMES leads with 46.81% vs 41.90% for HGER. On fees, EMES is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, HGER has been the lower-risk option at 4.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMES or HGER?

Over the 1-year period, EMES has performed better with a 46.81% return vs 41.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMES or HGER?

EMES is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for HGER.

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

HGER has the higher dividend yield at 5.53%, compared with 0.42% for EMES.

What is the main difference between EMES and HGER?

EMES is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while HGER is Commodities. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EMES and 0.68% for HGER.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HGER currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.50 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.