EMM vs. BBEM

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and BBEM (JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. EMM is actively managed, while BBEM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMM returned 18.36%/yr vs 19.21%/yr for BBEM. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for BBEM.

Performance

EMM vs. BBEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMM achieves a 24.68% return, which is significantly higher than BBEM's 20.47% return.

EMM

• 1D: 1.28%
• 1M: -3.86%
• 6M: 21.23%
• YTD: 24.68%
• 1Y: 42.86%
• 3Y*: 18.36%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BBEM

• 1D: 1.85%
• 1M: -2.20%
• 6M: 14.60%
• YTD: 20.47%
• 1Y: 37.90%
• 3Y*: 19.21%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMM vs. BBEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	24.68%	30.21%	2.34%	2.99%
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	20.47%	32.43%	5.61%	7.24%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and BBEM is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023	0.88

The correlation between EMM and BBEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMM vs. BBEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMM

EMM Risk / Return Rank: 67
EMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
EMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
EMM Omega Ratio Rank: 67
EMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
EMM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

BBEM

BBEM Risk / Return Rank: 66
BBEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
BBEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
BBEM Omega Ratio Rank: 66
BBEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
BBEM Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

EMM vs. BBEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM). 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.

	EMM	BBEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.69	1.65	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	2.20	+0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.32	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.92	2.90	+0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.62	10.06	+0.56

EMM vs. BBEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.69, which is comparable to the BBEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM and BBEM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EMM vs. BBEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, which is greater than BBEM's maximum drawdown of -17.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and BBEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMM	BBEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.99%	-17.42%	-4.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.75%	-13.12%	-1.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-17.42%	-4.57%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.77%	-6.98%	-2.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.71%	-3.74%	-0.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.05%	3.78%	+0.27%

Volatility

EMM vs. BBEM - Volatility Comparison

Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) have volatilities of 10.90% and 10.44%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMM	BBEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.90%	10.44%	+0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.59%	21.27%	+2.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.41%	23.13%	+2.28%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.09%	18.67%	+1.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.09%	18.67%	+1.42%

EMM vs. BBEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than BBEM's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMM vs. BBEM - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.76%, less than BBEM's 4.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	4.81%	5.86%	2.73%	1.94%
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	0.76%	0.90%	0.80%	0.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMM and BBEM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, EMM and BBEM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, EMM or BBEM?

EMM has higher volatility (10.90%) compared to BBEM (10.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs BBEM's -17.42%.

Which ETF is better, EMM or BBEM?

On 3-year performance, BBEM leads with 19.21% vs 18.36% for EMM. On fees, BBEM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, BBEM has been the lower-risk option at 10.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMM or BBEM?

Over the 3-year period, BBEM has performed better with a 19.21% return vs 18.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMM or BBEM?

BBEM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMM or BBEM?

BBEM has the higher dividend yield at 4.81%, compared with 0.76% for EMM.

What is the main difference between EMM and BBEM?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMM and 0.15% for BBEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.65), 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.