EMM vs. URA

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and URA (Global X Uranium ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund actively managed by Global X, while URA is a Uranium fund tracking the Solactive Global Uranium & Nuclear Components Total Return Index. EMM is actively managed, while URA is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMM returned 17.56%/yr vs 27.86%/yr for URA. Their 0.51 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EMM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for URA.

Performance

EMM vs. URA - 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 Uranium ETF (URA). 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 higher than URA's -4.49% 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%

URA

• 1D: 4.45%
• 1M: -5.60%
• 6M: -23.39%
• YTD: -4.49%
• 1Y: 11.87%
• 3Y*: 27.86%
• 5Y*: 20.93%
• 10Y*: 15.21%
• ALL TIME*: -3.09%

*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
URA Global X Uranium ETF	$125.37M	$115.54M	$169.15M

EMM vs. URA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	21.70%	30.21%	2.34%	2.99%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	-4.49%	67.18%	-0.58%	44.52%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and URA is 0.56, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.56
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023	0.51

The correlation between EMM and URA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMM vs. URA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMM	URA
Technology	48.1%	0.9%
Financial Services	20.9%	-
Industrials	9.9%	21.4%
Energy	4.5%	58.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	-
Basic Materials	3.8%	4.9%
Consumer Cyclical	2.6%	-
Communication Services	1.7%	-
Real Estate	1.6%	-
Healthcare	1.4%	-
Utilities	1.2%	7.1%

Return for Risk

EMM vs. URA — 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

URA

URA Risk / Return Rank: 18
URA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
URA Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
URA Omega Ratio Rank: 19
URA Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
URA Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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. URA - 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 Uranium ETF (URA). 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	URA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	0.23	+1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.09	0.71	+1.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.08	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.33	0.30	+2.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.08	0.65	+7.43

EMM vs. URA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is higher than the URA Sharpe Ratio of 0.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM and URA, 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. URA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, smaller than the maximum URA drawdown of -93.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and URA.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMM	URA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.99%	-93.54%	+71.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.62%	-39.30%	+21.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-39.30%	+17.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-39.30%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-61.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.92%	-53.69%	+41.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.85%	-74.74%	+69.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.06%	18.23%	-13.17%

Volatility

EMM vs. URA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) is 10.62%, while Global X Uranium ETF (URA) has a volatility of 14.37%. This indicates that EMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than URA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMM	URA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.62%	14.37%	-3.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.66%	37.93%	-13.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.71%	52.40%	-25.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.47%	44.16%	-23.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.47%	38.14%	-17.67%

EMM vs. URA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than URA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMM vs. URA - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, less than URA's 5.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	0.78%	0.90%	0.80%	0.66%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
URA Global X Uranium ETF	5.11%	4.88%	2.86%	6.07%	0.76%	5.84%	1.69%	1.66%	0.44%	2.03%	7.28%	1.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMM and URA in my portfolio?

EMM and URA have a correlation of 0.56, 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 URA?

URA has higher volatility (14.37%) compared to EMM (10.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs URA's -93.54%.

Which ETF is better, EMM or URA?

On 3-year performance, URA leads with 27.86% vs 17.56% for EMM. On fees, URA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, EMM has been the lower-risk option at 10.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMM or URA?

Over the 3-year period, URA has performed better with a 27.86% 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 URA?

URA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMM.

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

URA has the higher dividend yield at 5.11%, compared with 0.78% for EMM.

What is the main difference between EMM and URA?

EMM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while URA is Uranium. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMM and 0.69% for URA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs 0.23), 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.