EMMF vs. BKEM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

EMMF (WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund) and BKEM (BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. EMMF is actively managed, while BKEM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMMF returned 11.54%/yr vs 8.18%/yr for BKEM. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMMF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.11%/yr for BKEM.

Performance

EMMF vs. BKEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMMF achieves a 28.05% return, which is significantly lower than BKEM's 32.06% return.

EMMF

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 6.90%
• YTD: 28.05%
• 6M: 29.04%
• 1Y: 46.70%
• 3Y*: 23.64%
• 5Y*: 11.54%
• 10Y*: —

BKEM

• 1D: 0.31%
• 1M: 8.00%
• YTD: 32.06%
• 6M: 33.16%
• 1Y: 56.67%
• 3Y*: 24.82%
• 5Y*: 8.18%
• 10Y*: —

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

EMMF vs. BKEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	28.05%	21.22%	9.45%	20.59%	-13.47%	5.97%	32.72%
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	32.06%	30.55%	7.53%	8.68%	-19.43%	-3.91%	48.44%

Correlation

The correlation between EMMF and BKEM is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 24, 2020	0.89

The correlation between EMMF and BKEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMMF vs. BKEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMMF	BKEM
Technology	32.9%	43.0%
Consumer Cyclical	14.0%	8.7%
Financial Services	8.2%	16.9%
Communication Services	6.6%	5.8%
Consumer Defensive	4.4%	2.6%
Industrials	3.8%	8.1%
Energy	2.1%	3.4%
Utilities	2.0%	2.0%
Basic Materials	1.9%	5.7%
Healthcare	0.3%	2.7%
Real Estate	-	1.1%

Return for Risk

EMMF vs. BKEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMMF

EMMF Risk / Return Rank: 82
EMMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
EMMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
EMMF Omega Ratio Rank: 85
EMMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
EMMF Martin Ratio Rank: 84

BKEM

BKEM Risk / Return Rank: 83
BKEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
BKEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
BKEM Omega Ratio Rank: 84
BKEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
BKEM Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

EMMF vs. BKEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM). 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.

	EMMF	BKEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.53	2.66	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.25	3.34	-0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.48	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.42	4.35	+0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.68	15.95	+0.73

EMMF vs. BKEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.53, which is comparable to the BKEM Sharpe Ratio of 2.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMMF and BKEM, 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

EMMF vs. BKEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMMF drawdown since its inception was -32.57%, smaller than the maximum BKEM drawdown of -39.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMMF and BKEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMMF	BKEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.57%	-39.48%	+6.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.62%	-13.11%	+2.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.02%	-18.38%	+2.36%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.02%	-36.20%	+12.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.18%	0.00%	-1.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.43%	-15.90%	+8.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.81%	3.56%	-0.75%

Volatility

EMMF vs. BKEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) is 9.97%, while BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) has a volatility of 10.81%. This indicates that EMMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BKEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMMF	BKEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.97%	10.81%	-0.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.81%	19.24%	-2.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.58%	21.46%	-2.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.86%	19.19%	-4.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.85%	19.43%	-2.58%

EMMF vs. BKEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMMF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than BKEM's 0.11% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMMF vs. BKEM - Dividend Comparison

EMMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.85%, more than BKEM's 1.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.43%	2.25%	2.76%	3.02%	3.15%	2.22%	1.78%	0.00%	0.00%
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	1.85%	2.45%	1.30%	1.62%	3.48%	2.64%	1.93%	2.93%	0.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMMF and BKEM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, EMMF and BKEM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, EMMF or BKEM?

BKEM has higher volatility (10.81%) compared to EMMF (9.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMMF dropped -32.57% vs BKEM's -39.48%.

Which ETF is better, EMMF or BKEM?

On 5-year performance, EMMF leads with 11.54% vs 8.18% for BKEM. On fees, BKEM is cheaper at 0.11% per year. On volatility, EMMF has been the lower-risk option at 9.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMMF or BKEM?

Over the 5-year period, EMMF has performed better with a 11.54% return vs 8.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMMF or BKEM?

BKEM is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for EMMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMMF or BKEM?

EMMF has the higher dividend yield at 1.85%, compared with 1.43% for BKEM.

What is the main difference between EMMF and BKEM?

They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and BNY Mellon. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for EMMF and 0.11% for BKEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BKEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.66 vs 2.53), 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.