EMES vs. WINN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMES (Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF) and WINN (Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMES is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Harbor, while WINN is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Harbor. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, EMES returned 46.81% vs 20.20% for WINN. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMES charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.57%/yr for WINN.

Performance

EMES vs. WINN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) and Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF (WINN). 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 WINN's 7.32% return.

EMES

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

WINN

• 1D: -1.18%
• 1M: 5.43%
• YTD: 7.32%
• 6M: 5.90%
• 1Y: 20.20%
• 3Y*: 23.44%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMES vs. WINN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	28.30%	12.63%
WINN Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF	7.32%	13.81%

Correlation

The correlation between EMES and WINN is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2025	0.69

The correlation between EMES and WINN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMES vs. WINN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMES	WINN
Technology	42.9%	49.2%
Industrials	16.3%	4.9%
Consumer Cyclical	14.8%	13.3%
Financial Services	14.2%	5.1%
Communication Services	4.7%	15.9%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	2.9%
Real Estate	3.0%	0.4%
Healthcare	1.1%	6.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

EMES vs. WINN — 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

WINN

WINN Risk / Return Rank: 31
WINN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
WINN Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
WINN Omega Ratio Rank: 34
WINN Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
WINN Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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. WINN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) and Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF (WINN). 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	WINN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.25	1.26	+0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.98	1.77	+1.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.23	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.62	1.12	+2.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.07	3.51	+10.56
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. WINN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMES Sharpe Ratio is 2.25, which is higher than the WINN Sharpe Ratio of 1.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMES and WINN, 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	WINN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.25	1.26	+0.99
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.06	0.62	+1.44

Drawdowns

EMES vs. WINN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMES drawdown since its inception was -12.98%, smaller than the maximum WINN drawdown of -32.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMES and WINN.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMES	WINN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.98%	-32.07%	+19.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.98%	-18.06%	+5.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.66%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-1.85%	+0.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.07%	-9.09%	+7.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.34%	5.78%	-2.44%

Volatility

EMES vs. WINN - Volatility Comparison

Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) has a higher volatility of 8.70% compared to Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF (WINN) at 4.00%. This indicates that EMES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than WINN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMES	WINN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.70%	4.00%	+4.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.31%	12.24%	+6.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.89%	16.12%	+4.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.56%	23.74%	-3.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.56%	23.74%	-3.18%

EMES vs. WINN - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMES has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than WINN's 0.57% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMES vs. WINN - Dividend Comparison

EMES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, while WINN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	0.42%	0.53%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
WINN Harbor Long-Term Growers ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMES and WINN in my portfolio?

EMES and WINN have a correlation of 0.70, 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 WINN?

EMES has higher volatility (8.70%) compared to WINN (4.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMES dropped -12.98% vs WINN's -32.07%.

Which ETF is better, EMES or WINN?

On 1-year performance, EMES leads with 46.81% vs 20.20% for WINN. On fees, WINN is cheaper at 0.57% per year. On volatility, WINN has been the lower-risk option at 4.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMES or WINN?

Over the 1-year period, EMES has performed better with a 46.81% return vs 20.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMES or WINN?

WINN is cheaper with a 0.57% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for EMES.

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

EMES has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.00% for WINN.

What is the main difference between EMES and WINN?

EMES is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while WINN is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EMES and 0.57% for WINN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMES currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.25 vs 1.26), 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.