EMM vs. OAEM

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and OAEM (OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMM returned 17.56%/yr vs 19.47%/yr for OAEM. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMM charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.25%/yr for OAEM.

Performance

EMM vs. OAEM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMM achieves a 21.70% return, which is significantly lower than OAEM's 28.09% 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%

OAEM

• 1D: 1.23%
• 1M: -1.68%
• 6M: 15.61%
• YTD: 28.09%
• 1Y: 45.68%
• 3Y*: 19.47%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.76%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	$209.26K	$283.91K	$450.77K
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	$686.79K	$671.79K	$1.20M

EMM vs. OAEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	21.70%	30.21%	2.34%	2.99%
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	28.09%	26.67%	0.43%	10.11%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and OAEM is 0.89, 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.	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023	0.85

The correlation between EMM and OAEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMM vs. OAEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMM	OAEM
Technology	48.1%	45.0%
Financial Services	20.9%	15.7%
Industrials	9.9%	15.8%
Energy	4.5%	3.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	2.1%
Basic Materials	3.8%	7.1%
Consumer Cyclical	2.6%	5.1%
Communication Services	1.7%	1.3%
Real Estate	1.6%	3.9%
Healthcare	1.4%	-
Utilities	1.2%	0.9%

Return for Risk

EMM vs. OAEM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EMM

EMM Risk / Return Rank: 63
EMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
EMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
EMM Omega Ratio Rank: 65
EMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
EMM Martin Ratio Rank: 64

OAEM

OAEM Risk / Return Rank: 69
OAEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
OAEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
OAEM Omega Ratio Rank: 67
OAEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
OAEM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

EMM vs. OAEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF (OAEM). 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	OAEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	1.67	-0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.09	2.17	-0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.31	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.33	3.04	-0.72
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.08	9.80	-1.72

EMM vs. OAEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is comparable to the OAEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM and OAEM, 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. OAEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, which is greater than OAEM's maximum drawdown of -17.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and OAEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMM	OAEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.99%	-17.05%	-4.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.62%	-15.09%	-2.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-17.05%	-4.94%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.92%	-9.27%	-2.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.85%	-3.98%	-0.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.06%	4.67%	+0.39%

Volatility

EMM vs. OAEM - Volatility Comparison

Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF (OAEM) have volatilities of 10.62% and 10.63%, 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	OAEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.62%	10.63%	-0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.66%	25.37%	-0.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.71%	27.47%	-0.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.47%	20.93%	-0.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.47%	20.93%	-0.46%

EMM vs. OAEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than OAEM's 1.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMM vs. OAEM - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, more than OAEM's 0.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	0.78%	0.90%	0.80%	0.66%	0.00%
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	0.60%	0.77%	0.91%	1.63%	0.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMM and OAEM in my portfolio?

EMM and OAEM have a correlation of 0.89, 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 OAEM?

OAEM has higher volatility (10.63%) compared to EMM (10.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs OAEM's -17.05%.

Which ETF is better, EMM or OAEM?

On 3-year performance, OAEM leads with 19.47% vs 17.56% for EMM. On fees, EMM is cheaper at 0.75% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMM or OAEM?

Over the 3-year period, OAEM has performed better with a 19.47% return vs 17.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMM or OAEM?

EMM is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for OAEM.

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

EMM has the higher dividend yield at 0.78%, compared with 0.60% for OAEM.

What is the main difference between EMM and OAEM?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Oneascent. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMM and 1.25% for OAEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

OAEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.54), 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.