EMM vs. VWO

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and VWO (Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Global X, while VWO is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the FTSE Emerging Index. EMM is actively managed, while VWO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMM returned 20.70%/yr vs 16.61%/yr for VWO. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.08%/yr for VWO.

Performance

EMM vs. VWO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMM achieves a 29.69% return, which is significantly higher than VWO's 10.77% return.

EMM

• 1D: 0.59%
• 1M: 1.81%
• YTD: 29.69%
• 6M: 35.77%
• 1Y: 55.69%
• 3Y*: 20.70%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

VWO

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: -0.68%
• YTD: 10.77%
• 6M: 12.57%
• 1Y: 26.52%
• 3Y*: 16.61%
• 5Y*: 5.03%
• 10Y*: 9.00%

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

EMM vs. VWO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	29.69%	30.21%	2.34%	2.99%
VWO Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF	10.77%	25.60%	10.59%	7.44%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and VWO is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023	0.85

The correlation between EMM and VWO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMM vs. VWO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMM	VWO
Technology	45.5%	29.6%
Financial Services	25.0%	19.5%
Industrials	5.9%	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	3.7%
Energy	4.8%	4.6%
Basic Materials	3.9%	8.0%
Consumer Cyclical	2.7%	10.7%
Communication Services	2.7%	7.1%
Real Estate	1.8%	2.2%
Healthcare	1.5%	3.9%
Utilities	1.2%	2.9%

Return for Risk

EMM vs. VWO — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMM

EMM Risk / Return Rank: 80
EMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
EMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
EMM Omega Ratio Rank: 81
EMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
EMM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

VWO

VWO Risk / Return Rank: 50
VWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
VWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
VWO Omega Ratio Rank: 51
VWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
VWO Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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. VWO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) and Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (VWO). 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	VWO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.28	1.49	+0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.95	2.10	+0.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.28	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.63	2.21	+1.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.64	7.80	+6.83

EMM vs. VWO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 2.28, which is higher than the VWO Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM and VWO, 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. VWO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, smaller than the maximum VWO drawdown of -67.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and VWO.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMM	VWO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.99%	-67.68%	+45.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.75%	-11.17%	-3.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-17.37%	-4.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-32.60%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.59%	-2.68%	-0.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.69%	-15.80%	+11.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	3.17%	+0.49%

Volatility

EMM vs. VWO - Volatility Comparison

Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) has a higher volatility of 11.73% compared to Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (VWO) at 6.64%. This indicates that EMM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VWO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMM	VWO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.73%	6.64%	+5.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.36%	14.04%	+7.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.47%	16.54%	+6.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.43%	17.48%	+1.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.43%	19.22%	+0.21%

EMM vs. VWO - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than VWO's 0.08% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMM vs. VWO - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.69%, less than VWO's 2.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	0.69%	0.90%	0.80%	0.66%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VWO Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF	2.44%	2.79%	3.20%	3.52%	4.11%	2.63%	1.91%	3.23%	2.88%	2.30%	2.52%	3.26%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMM and VWO in my portfolio?

EMM and VWO have a correlation of 0.86, 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 VWO?

EMM has higher volatility (11.73%) compared to VWO (6.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs VWO's -67.68%.

Which ETF is better, EMM or VWO?

On 3-year performance, EMM leads with 20.70% vs 16.61% for VWO. On fees, VWO is cheaper at 0.08% per year. On volatility, VWO has been the lower-risk option at 6.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMM or VWO?

Over the 3-year period, EMM has performed better with a 20.70% return vs 16.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMM or VWO?

VWO is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMM.

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

VWO has the higher dividend yield at 2.44%, compared with 0.69% for EMM.

What is the main difference between EMM and VWO?

EMM is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while VWO is Emerging Markets Equities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMM and 0.08% for VWO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 1.49), 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.