EMM vs. FTHF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and FTHF (First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. EMM is actively managed, while FTHF is passively managed. Over the past year, EMM returned 63.51% vs 109.33% for FTHF. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

EMM vs. FTHF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMM achieves a 32.97% return, which is significantly lower than FTHF's 51.24% return.

EMM

• 1D: -1.15%
• 1M: 10.12%
• YTD: 32.97%
• 6M: 38.50%
• 1Y: 63.51%
• 3Y*: 22.67%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FTHF

• 1D: -1.84%
• 1M: 15.16%
• YTD: 51.24%
• 6M: 61.52%
• 1Y: 109.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMM vs. FTHF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	32.97%	30.21%	2.34%	12.11%
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF	51.24%	65.30%	-8.14%	18.14%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and FTHF is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2023	0.85

The correlation between EMM and FTHF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMM vs. FTHF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMM	FTHF
Technology	45.5%	40.7%
Financial Services	25.0%	27.7%
Industrials	5.9%	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	3.4%
Energy	4.8%	7.2%
Basic Materials	3.9%	10.3%
Consumer Cyclical	2.7%	0.6%
Communication Services	2.7%	1.0%
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Healthcare	1.5%	0.5%
Utilities	1.2%	2.5%

Return for Risk

EMM vs. FTHF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMM

EMM Risk / Return Rank: 85
EMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
EMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
EMM Omega Ratio Rank: 85
EMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EMM Martin Ratio Rank: 86

FTHF

FTHF Risk / Return Rank: 90
FTHF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FTHF Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FTHF Omega Ratio Rank: 92
FTHF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
FTHF Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. FTHF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF). 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.

	EMM	FTHF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.94	3.36	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.79	3.85	-0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.62	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.33	6.74	-2.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.13	18.95	-0.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMM vs. FTHF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 2.94, which is comparable to the FTHF Sharpe Ratio of 3.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM and FTHF, 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

	EMM	FTHF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.94	3.36	-0.41
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.17	1.86	-0.69

Drawdowns

EMM vs. FTHF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, which is greater than FTHF's maximum drawdown of -17.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and FTHF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMM	FTHF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.99%	-17.36%	-4.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.75%	-16.31%	+1.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.15%	-1.84%	+0.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.68%	-4.22%	-0.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.51%	5.79%	-2.28%

Volatility

EMM vs. FTHF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) is 9.79%, while First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF) has a volatility of 12.15%. This indicates that EMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FTHF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMM	FTHF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.79%	12.15%	-2.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.28%	24.47%	-5.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.69%	32.76%	-11.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.83%	25.45%	-6.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.83%	25.45%	-6.62%

EMM vs. FTHF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EMM and FTHF have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

EMM vs. FTHF - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%, less than FTHF's 2.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	0.67%	0.90%	0.80%	0.66%
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF	2.98%	4.40%	3.34%	0.51%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMM and FTHF in my portfolio?

EMM and FTHF have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMM or FTHF?

FTHF has higher volatility (12.15%) compared to EMM (9.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs FTHF's -17.36%.

Which ETF is better, EMM or FTHF?

On 1-year performance, FTHF leads with 109.33% vs 63.51% for EMM. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. On volatility, EMM has been the lower-risk option at 9.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMM or FTHF?

Over the 1-year period, FTHF has performed better with a 109.33% return vs 63.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMM or FTHF?

EMM and FTHF have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

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

FTHF has the higher dividend yield at 2.98%, compared with 0.67% for EMM.

What is the main difference between EMM and FTHF?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and First Trust.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FTHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.36 vs 2.94), 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.