EMM vs. SIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and SIL (Global X Silver Miners ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Global X, while SIL is a Silver fund tracking the Solactive Global Silver Miners Total Return Index. EMM is actively managed, while SIL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMM returned 22.67%/yr vs 49.15%/yr for SIL. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for SIL.

Performance

EMM vs. SIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL). 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 higher than SIL's 4.75% return.

EMM

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

SIL

• 1D: -4.96%
• 1M: 0.68%
• YTD: 4.75%
• 6M: 15.66%
• 1Y: 91.23%
• 3Y*: 49.15%
• 5Y*: 13.96%
• 10Y*: 10.69%

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

EMM vs. SIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	32.97%	30.21%	2.34%	3.40%
SIL Global X Silver Miners ETF	4.75%	166.16%	14.62%	-2.30%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and SIL is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2023	0.44

EMM vs. SIL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMM	SIL
Technology	45.5%	-
Financial Services	25.0%	-
Industrials	5.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	0.2%
Energy	4.8%	-
Basic Materials	3.9%	99.8%
Consumer Cyclical	2.7%	-
Communication Services	2.7%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Healthcare	1.5%	-
Utilities	1.2%	-

Return for Risk

EMM vs. SIL — 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

SIL

SIL Risk / Return Rank: 48
SIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
SIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
SIL Omega Ratio Rank: 46
SIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
SIL Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. SIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL). 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	SIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.94	1.83	+1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.79	2.17	+1.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.30	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.33	2.79	+1.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.13	7.14	+10.99
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. SIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 2.94, which is higher than the SIL Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM and SIL, 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	SIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.94	1.83	+1.11
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.36	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.27	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.17	0.14	+1.04

Drawdowns

EMM vs. SIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, smaller than the maximum SIL drawdown of -82.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and SIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMM	SIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.99%	-82.99%	+61.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.75%	-32.91%	+18.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-32.91%	+10.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-55.08%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-63.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.15%	-25.87%	+24.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.68%	-51.45%	+46.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.51%	12.82%	-9.31%

Volatility

EMM vs. SIL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) is 9.79%, while Global X Silver Miners ETF (SIL) has a volatility of 17.66%. This indicates that EMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMM	SIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.79%	17.66%	-7.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.28%	41.57%	-22.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.69%	50.01%	-28.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.83%	39.21%	-20.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.83%	39.60%	-20.77%

EMM vs. SIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than SIL's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMM vs. SIL - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%, less than SIL's 1.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	0.67%	0.90%	0.80%	0.66%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SIL Global X Silver Miners ETF	1.13%	1.18%	2.40%	0.59%	0.48%	1.59%	1.92%	1.53%	1.21%	0.02%	3.34%	0.38%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMM and SIL in my portfolio?

EMM and SIL have a correlation of 0.40, 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 SIL?

SIL has higher volatility (17.66%) compared to EMM (9.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs SIL's -82.99%.

Which ETF is better, EMM or SIL?

On 3-year performance, SIL leads with 49.15% vs 22.67% for EMM. On fees, SIL is cheaper at 0.65% per year. 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 SIL?

Over the 3-year period, SIL has performed better with a 49.15% return vs 22.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMM or SIL?

SIL is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMM.

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

SIL has the higher dividend yield at 1.13%, compared with 0.67% for EMM.

What is the main difference between EMM and SIL?

EMM is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while SIL is Silver. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMM and 0.65% for SIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.94 vs 1.83), 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.