EMF vs. FRDM
EMF (Templeton Emerging Markets Fund) and FRDM (Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. EMF is actively managed, while FRDM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMF returned 12.12%/yr vs 17.22%/yr for FRDM. Their 0.72 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EMF charges 1.43%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for FRDM.
Performance
EMF vs. FRDM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EMF having a 27.21% return and FRDM slightly higher at 28.12%.
EMF
- 1D
- 1.68%
- 1M
- -5.02%
- 6M
- 9.69%
- YTD
- 27.21%
- 1Y
- 55.05%
- 3Y*
- 28.54%
- 5Y*
- 12.12%
- 10Y*
- 13.35%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.56%
FRDM
- 1D
- 0.66%
- 1M
- -4.87%
- 6M
- 13.53%
- YTD
- 28.12%
- 1Y
- 65.50%
- 3Y*
- 29.15%
- 5Y*
- 17.22%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 16.90%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.08M | $849.02K | $917.55K | |
| $22.77M | $21.45M | $25.02M |
EMF vs. FRDM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMF Templeton Emerging Markets Fund | 27.21% | 58.20% | 6.56% | 8.84% | -21.53% | -8.23% | 24.48% | 18.33% |
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF | 28.12% | 61.27% | 1.70% | 22.77% | -14.45% | 6.13% | 16.90% | 12.23% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMF and FRDM is 0.76, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.76 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.71 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.70 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2019 | 0.72 |
The correlation between EMF and FRDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
EMF vs. FRDM — Risk / Return Rank
EMF
FRDM
EMF vs. FRDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Templeton Emerging Markets Fund (EMF) and Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| EMF | FRDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.01 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.37 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.86 | 3.39 | -0.53 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.04 | 11.29 | -2.25 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMF vs. FRDM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMF drawdown since its inception was -76.97%, which is greater than FRDM's maximum drawdown of -40.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMF and FRDM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMF | FRDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -76.97% | -40.49% | -36.48% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.48% | -19.24% | -0.24% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.48% | -19.24% | -0.24% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -40.33% | -29.25% | -11.08% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -47.65% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.30% | -14.15% | +0.85% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.90% | -7.13% | -21.77% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.15% | 5.77% | +0.38% |
Volatility
EMF vs. FRDM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Templeton Emerging Markets Fund (EMF) is 9.86%, while Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) has a volatility of 12.28%. This indicates that EMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FRDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMF | FRDM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.86% | 12.28% | -2.42% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.40% | 28.47% | -5.07% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.33% | 30.66% | -4.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 21.21% | 22.38% | -1.17% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.86% | 23.62% | -2.76% |
EMF vs. FRDM - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMF has a 1.43% expense ratio, which is higher than FRDM's 0.49% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMF vs. FRDM - Dividend Comparison
EMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.91%, more than FRDM's 1.69% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMF Templeton Emerging Markets Fund | 7.91% | 9.73% | 4.28% | 6.22% | 9.89% | 6.92% | 3.51% | 7.36% | 5.92% | 12.11% | 1.62% | 12.81% |
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF | 1.69% | 2.26% | 2.53% | 2.66% | 2.72% | 2.17% | 1.11% | 1.07% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMF and FRDM have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FRDM has higher volatility (12.28%) compared to EMF (9.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMF dropped -76.97% vs FRDM's -40.49%.
FRDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 2.12), 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.
Find the right allocation for EMF and FRDM
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