EMM vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

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 Diversified fund actively managed by Global X, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. EMM is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMM returned 21.97%/yr vs 18.95%/yr for UGA. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

EMM vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMM achieves a 30.43% return, which is significantly lower than UGA's 64.09% return.

EMM

• 1D: -5.60%
• 1M: 4.22%
• YTD: 30.43%
• 6M: 33.87%
• 1Y: 55.00%
• 3Y*: 21.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UGA

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: -12.11%
• YTD: 64.09%
• 6M: 60.42%
• 1Y: 59.74%
• 3Y*: 18.95%
• 5Y*: 22.69%
• 10Y*: 14.31%

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

EMM vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	30.43%	30.21%	2.34%	2.99%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	64.09%	-2.00%	3.77%	7.95%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and UGA is -0.22, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.22
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023	-0.00

Over the past year, the inverse relationship between EMM and UGA has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.00 to -0.22, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.

Return for Risk

EMM vs. UGA — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMM

EMM Risk / Return Rank: 76
EMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
EMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EMM Omega Ratio Rank: 76
EMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
EMM Martin Ratio Rank: 81

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 55
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 49
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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. 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 ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	1.73	+0.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.87	2.25	+0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.30	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.75	3.17	+0.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.03	9.39	+5.64

EMM vs. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is higher than the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM and UGA, 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. 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.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMM	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.99%	-86.59%	+64.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.75%	-18.96%	+4.21%
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 Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.60%	-18.05%	+12.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.67%	-36.69%	+32.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.67%	6.43%	-2.76%

Volatility

EMM vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) has a higher volatility of 13.10% compared to United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) at 9.24%. This indicates that EMM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMM	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.10%	9.24%	+3.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.46%	30.57%	-8.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.51%	35.22%	-10.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.83%	34.45%	-14.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.83%	37.22%	-17.39%

EMM vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EMM vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.69%, while UGA has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	0.69%	0.90%	0.80%	0.66%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMM and UGA in my portfolio?

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.

Which is riskier, EMM or UGA?

EMM has higher volatility (13.10%) compared to UGA (9.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs UGA's -86.59%.

Which ETF is better, EMM or UGA?

On 3-year performance, EMM leads with 21.97% vs 18.95% for UGA. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. On volatility, UGA has been the lower-risk option at 9.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMM or UGA?

Over the 3-year period, EMM has performed better with a 21.97% return vs 18.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMM or UGA?

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

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

EMM has the higher dividend yield at 0.69%, compared with 0.00% for UGA.

What is the main difference between EMM and UGA?

EMM is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Concierge Technologies.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.25 vs 1.73), 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.