EMKT vs. IXC
EMKT (Lazard Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF) and IXC (iShares Global Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMKT is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Lazard, while IXC is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global 1200 Energy Capped Index. EMKT is actively managed, while IXC is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. EMKT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for IXC.
Performance
EMKT vs. IXC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMKT achieves a 25.98% return, which is significantly higher than IXC's 19.75% return.
EMKT
- 1D
- 0.48%
- 1M
- 3.85%
- YTD
- 25.98%
- 6M
- 26.41%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IXC
- 1D
- -2.08%
- 1M
- -10.58%
- YTD
- 19.75%
- 6M
- 20.79%
- 1Y
- 30.95%
- 3Y*
- 15.57%
- 5Y*
- 17.21%
- 10Y*
- 9.15%
EMKT vs. IXC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
EMKT Lazard Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF | 25.98% | -1.26% |
IXC iShares Global Energy ETF | 19.75% | 2.84% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMKT and IXC is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2025 | -0.15 |
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
EMKT vs. IXC — Risk / Return Rank
EMKT
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
IXC
EMKT vs. IXC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lazard Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMKT) and iShares Global Energy ETF (IXC). 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.
| EMKT | IXC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.27 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.25 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 7.97 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMKT vs. IXC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMKT drawdown since its inception was -14.21%, smaller than the maximum IXC drawdown of -67.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMKT and IXC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMKT | IXC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.21% | -67.88% | +53.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -13.81% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -19.06% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -24.93% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -64.16% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.18% | -13.81% | +8.63% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.11% | -17.46% | +14.35% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 3.89% | — |
Volatility
EMKT vs. IXC - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMKT | IXC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 6.72% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 15.92% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.64% | 19.14% | +5.50% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.64% | 23.50% | +1.14% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 24.64% | 26.83% | -2.19% |
EMKT vs. IXC - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMKT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than IXC's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMKT vs. IXC - Dividend Comparison
EMKT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.44%, less than IXC's 3.17% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMKT Lazard Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF | 0.44% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IXC iShares Global Energy ETF | 3.17% | 3.68% | 4.56% | 3.45% | 4.76% | 3.98% | 4.86% | 7.00% | 3.51% | 3.05% | 2.86% | 3.77% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMKT and IXC have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IXC is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IXC is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for EMKT.
IXC has the higher dividend yield at 3.17%, compared with 0.44% for EMKT.
EMKT is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while IXC is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Lazard and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for EMKT and 0.40% for IXC.
Find the right allocation for EMKT and IXC
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