EMM vs. UGA
EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund, LP) are both exchange-traded funds - EMM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund actively managed by Global X, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Near-Month NYMEX RBOB Gasoline Futures Contract. EMM is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMM returned 18.65%/yr vs 14.87%/yr for UGA. Their -0.01 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. EMM charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.02%/yr for UGA.
Performance
EMM vs. UGA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMM achieves a 25.13% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 72.77% return.
EMM
- 1D
- -0.43%
- 1M
- -4.57%
- 6M
- 16.24%
- YTD
- 25.13%
- 1Y
- 43.97%
- 3Y*
- 18.65%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 18.26%
UGA
- 1D
- -0.56%
- 1M
- 0.07%
- 6M
- 54.03%
- YTD
- 72.77%
- 1Y
- 71.49%
- 3Y*
- 14.87%
- 5Y*
- 24.07%
- 10Y*
- 16.28%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.25%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $230.97K | $283.36K | $389.58K | |
| $8.67M | $6.11M | $4.99M |
EMM vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF | 25.13% | 30.21% | 2.34% | 2.99% |
UGA United States Gasoline Fund, LP | 72.77% | -2.00% | 3.77% | 7.95% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMM and UGA is -0.22, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.22 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.03 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023 | -0.01 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between EMM and UGA has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.01 to -0.22, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.
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. UGA — Risk / Return Rank
EMM
UGA
EMM vs. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and United States Gasoline Fund, LP (UGA). 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 | UGA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.32 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.25 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.32 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.51 | 3.54 | -1.03 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.61 | 9.75 | -1.15 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMM vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and UGA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMM | UGA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.99% | -86.59% | +64.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.62% | -20.32% | +2.70% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.99% | -26.68% | +4.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -38.11% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -75.89% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -9.44% | -14.67% | +5.23% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.86% | -36.52% | +31.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.12% | 7.36% | -2.24% |
Volatility
EMM vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) is 10.11%, while United States Gasoline Fund, LP (UGA) has a volatility of 13.00%. This indicates that EMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMM | UGA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.11% | 13.00% | -2.89% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.82% | 32.16% | -7.34% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.84% | 36.60% | -9.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.52% | 34.71% | -14.19% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.52% | 37.31% | -16.79% |
EMM vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than UGA's 1.02% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMM vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison
EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.76%, while UGA has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF | 0.76% | 0.90% | 0.80% | 0.66% |
UGA United States Gasoline Fund, LP | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMM and UGA have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
UGA has higher volatility (13.00%) compared to EMM (10.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs UGA's -86.59%.
On 3-year performance, EMM leads with 18.65% vs 14.87% for UGA. On fees, EMM is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, EMM has been the lower-risk option at 10.11%. 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 18.65% return vs 14.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EMM is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.02% for UGA.
EMM has the higher dividend yield at 0.76%, compared with 0.00% for UGA.
EMM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Global X and USCF. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMM and 1.02% for UGA.
UGA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.96 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.
Find the right allocation for EMM and UGA
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