EMGF vs. EEMO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMGF (iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF) and EEMO (Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMGF is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Diversified Multiple-Factor Index, while EEMO is a Momentum fund tracking the S&P Momentum Emerging Plus LargeMidCap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EMGF returned 11.48%/yr vs 8.88%/yr for EEMO. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMGF charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.31%/yr for EEMO.

Performance

EMGF vs. EEMO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF) and Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMGF achieves a 30.01% return, which is significantly lower than EEMO's 40.25% return. Over the past 10 years, EMGF has outperformed EEMO with an annualized return of 11.48%, while EEMO has yielded a comparatively lower 8.88% annualized return.

EMGF

• 1D: -1.20%
• 1M: 9.65%
• YTD: 30.01%
• 6M: 32.52%
• 1Y: 55.31%
• 3Y*: 26.88%
• 5Y*: 10.38%
• 10Y*: 11.48%

EEMO

• 1D: -1.32%
• 1M: 18.59%
• YTD: 40.25%
• 6M: 41.33%
• 1Y: 57.41%
• 3Y*: 25.30%
• 5Y*: 7.19%
• 10Y*: 8.88%

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

EMGF vs. EEMO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMGF iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF	30.01%	31.41%	9.06%	10.86%	-16.55%	6.65%	10.27%	20.96%	-19.71%	42.37%
EEMO Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF	40.25%	10.99%	9.88%	13.90%	-18.73%	-5.57%	9.66%	21.17%	-17.24%	49.65%

Correlation

The correlation between EMGF and EEMO is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2015	0.79

The correlation between EMGF and EEMO shifts across timeframes, from 0.79 (all time) to 0.90 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EMGF vs. EEMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMGF	EEMO
Technology	34.7%	43.8%
Financial Services	19.2%	18.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	3.2%
Industrials	7.8%	11.5%
Communication Services	7.4%	1.5%
Basic Materials	5.8%	12.9%
Energy	4.3%	2.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.8%	1.2%
Healthcare	2.9%	3.0%
Utilities	2.5%	2.0%
Real Estate	1.1%	0.5%

Return for Risk

EMGF vs. EEMO — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMGF

EMGF Risk / Return Rank: 81
EMGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EMGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
EMGF Omega Ratio Rank: 83
EMGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
EMGF Martin Ratio Rank: 80

EEMO

EEMO Risk / Return Rank: 75
EEMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
EEMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
EEMO Omega Ratio Rank: 77
EEMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
EEMO Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

EMGF vs. EEMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF) and Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO). 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.

	EMGF	EEMO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.78	2.36	+0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.62	3.28	+0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.46	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.11	3.91	+0.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.84	15.67	+0.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMGF vs. EEMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMGF Sharpe Ratio is 2.78, which is comparable to the EEMO Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMGF and EEMO, 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

	EMGF	EEMO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.78	2.36	+0.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59	0.37	+0.22
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.59	0.41	+0.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.57	0.13	+0.43

Drawdowns

EMGF vs. EEMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMGF drawdown since its inception was -40.23%, smaller than the maximum EEMO drawdown of -48.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMGF and EEMO.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMGF	EEMO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.23%	-48.47%	+8.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.54%	-14.75%	+1.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.65%	-26.06%	+8.41%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.60%	-34.03%	+5.43%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.23%	-46.57%	+6.34%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.20%	-1.32%	+0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.05%	-20.17%	+10.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.50%	3.67%	-0.17%

Volatility

EMGF vs. EEMO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF) is 9.20%, while Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO) has a volatility of 14.32%. This indicates that EMGF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMGF	EEMO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.20%	14.32%	-5.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.50%	22.10%	-4.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.99%	24.45%	-4.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.69%	19.33%	-1.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.48%	21.59%	-2.11%

EMGF vs. EEMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMGF has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than EEMO's 0.31% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMGF vs. EEMO - Dividend Comparison

EMGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.94%, more than EEMO's 1.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMO Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF	1.64%	2.31%	2.57%	3.65%	3.82%	1.51%	1.53%	2.13%	13.10%	5.13%	1.55%	2.92%
EMGF iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF	1.94%	2.52%	3.42%	5.94%	4.04%	2.48%	1.95%	2.63%	2.73%	1.94%	2.04%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMGF and EEMO in my portfolio?

EMGF and EEMO have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMGF or EEMO?

EEMO has higher volatility (14.32%) compared to EMGF (9.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMGF dropped -40.23% vs EEMO's -48.47%.

Which ETF is better, EMGF or EEMO?

On 10-year performance, EMGF leads with 11.48% vs 8.88% for EEMO. On fees, EEMO is cheaper at 0.31% per year. On volatility, EMGF has been the lower-risk option at 9.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMGF or EEMO?

Over the 10-year period, EMGF has performed better with a 11.48% return vs 8.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMGF or EEMO?

EEMO is cheaper with a 0.31% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for EMGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMGF or EEMO?

EMGF has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 1.64% for EEMO.

What is the main difference between EMGF and EEMO?

EMGF is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while EEMO is Momentum. EMGF tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Diversified Multiple-Factor Index, while EEMO tracks S&P Momentum Emerging Plus LargeMidCap Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for EMGF and 0.31% for EEMO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.78 vs 2.36), 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.