EMM vs. DFSE
EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and DFSE (Dimensional Emerging Markets Sustainability Core 1 ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMM returned 17.56%/yr vs 16.70%/yr for DFSE. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.41%/yr for DFSE.
Performance
EMM vs. DFSE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMM achieves a 21.70% return, which is significantly higher than DFSE's 13.25% return.
EMM
- 1D
- 1.09%
- 1M
- -4.48%
- 6M
- 12.18%
- YTD
- 21.70%
- 1Y
- 40.77%
- 3Y*
- 17.56%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 17.27%
DFSE
- 1D
- 1.24%
- 1M
- -1.59%
- 6M
- 5.72%
- YTD
- 13.25%
- 1Y
- 25.61%
- 3Y*
- 16.70%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 19.81%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.30M | $1.31M | $1.27M | |
| $209.26K | $283.91K | $450.77K |
EMM vs. DFSE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF | 21.70% | 30.21% | 2.34% | 2.99% |
DFSE Dimensional Emerging Markets Sustainability Core 1 ETF | 13.25% | 28.22% | 6.90% | 10.80% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMM and DFSE is 0.90, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.90 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.85 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023 | 0.86 |
The correlation between EMM and DFSE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.
EMM vs. DFSE - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
EMM
DFSE
Technology
Financial Services
Industrials
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Basic Materials
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Real Estate
Healthcare
Utilities
Technology
EMM
DFSE
Financial Services
EMM
DFSE
Industrials
EMM
DFSE
Energy
EMM
DFSE
Consumer Defensive
EMM
DFSE
Basic Materials
EMM
DFSE
Consumer Cyclical
EMM
DFSE
Communication Services
EMM
DFSE
Real Estate
EMM
DFSE
Healthcare
EMM
DFSE
Utilities
EMM
DFSE
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
EMM vs. DFSE — Risk / Return Rank
EMM
DFSE
EMM vs. DFSE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and Dimensional Emerging Markets Sustainability Core 1 ETF (DFSE). 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 | DFSE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.38 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.45 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.29 | 1.23 | +0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.33 | 2.00 | +0.33 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.08 | 5.91 | +2.18 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMM vs. DFSE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, which is greater than DFSE's maximum drawdown of -19.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and DFSE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMM | DFSE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.99% | -19.77% | -2.22% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.62% | -12.88% | -4.74% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.99% | -19.77% | -2.22% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.92% | -7.97% | -3.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.85% | -4.08% | -0.77% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.06% | 4.35% | +0.71% |
Volatility
EMM vs. DFSE - Volatility Comparison
Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) has a higher volatility of 10.62% compared to Dimensional Emerging Markets Sustainability Core 1 ETF (DFSE) at 8.22%. This indicates that EMM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DFSE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMM | DFSE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.62% | 8.22% | +2.40% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.66% | 20.14% | +4.52% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.71% | 22.19% | +4.52% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.47% | 18.47% | +2.00% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.47% | 18.47% | +2.00% |
EMM vs. DFSE - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than DFSE's 0.41% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMM vs. DFSE - Dividend Comparison
EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, less than DFSE's 1.95% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DFSE Dimensional Emerging Markets Sustainability Core 1 ETF | 1.95% | 2.26% | 2.06% | 2.06% | 0.36% |
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF | 0.78% | 0.90% | 0.80% | 0.66% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.90, EMM and DFSE 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.
EMM has higher volatility (10.62%) compared to DFSE (8.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs DFSE's -19.77%.
On 3-year performance, EMM leads with 17.56% vs 16.70% for DFSE. On fees, DFSE is cheaper at 0.41% per year. On volatility, DFSE has been the lower-risk option at 8.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, EMM has performed better with a 17.56% return vs 16.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DFSE is cheaper with a 0.41% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMM.
DFSE has the higher dividend yield at 1.95%, compared with 0.78% for EMM.
They also come from different issuers: Global X and Dimensional. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMM and 0.41% for DFSE.
EMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs 1.16), 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 EMM and DFSE
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