EMMF vs. QGRW

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

EMMF (WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund) and QGRW (WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - EMMF is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by WisdomTree, while QGRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Index. EMMF is actively managed, while QGRW is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EMMF returned 21.46%/yr vs 25.77%/yr for QGRW. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMMF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.28%/yr for QGRW.

Performance

EMMF vs. QGRW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) and WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund (QGRW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMMF achieves a 21.41% return, which is significantly higher than QGRW's 9.08% return.

EMMF

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 1.36%
• YTD: 21.41%
• 6M: 22.04%
• 1Y: 35.70%
• 3Y*: 21.46%
• 5Y*: 10.09%
• 10Y*: —

QGRW

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: -2.07%
• YTD: 9.08%
• 6M: 7.64%
• 1Y: 25.28%
• 3Y*: 25.77%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMMF vs. QGRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	21.41%	21.22%	9.45%	20.59%	-0.68%
QGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund	9.08%	19.20%	34.85%	56.05%	-3.07%

Correlation

The correlation between EMMF and QGRW is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2022	0.64

The correlation between EMMF and QGRW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMMF vs. QGRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMMF	QGRW
Technology	32.9%	55.0%
Consumer Cyclical	14.0%	11.6%
Financial Services	8.2%	3.7%
Communication Services	6.6%	16.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.4%	0.5%
Industrials	3.8%	7.6%
Energy	2.1%	0.5%
Utilities	2.0%	0.3%
Basic Materials	1.9%	-
Healthcare	0.3%	4.4%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

EMMF vs. QGRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMMF

EMMF Risk / Return Rank: 69
EMMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
EMMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
EMMF Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EMMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
EMMF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

QGRW

QGRW Risk / Return Rank: 40
QGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
QGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
QGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 40
QGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
QGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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. QGRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) and WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund (QGRW). 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	QGRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	1.36	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.43	1.88	+0.55
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.24	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.38	1.64	+1.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.50	6.15	+6.36

EMMF vs. QGRW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is higher than the QGRW Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMMF and QGRW, 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. QGRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMMF drawdown since its inception was -32.57%, which is greater than QGRW's maximum drawdown of -24.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMMF and QGRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMMF	QGRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.57%	-24.40%	-8.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.62%	-15.44%	+4.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.02%	-24.40%	+8.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.30%	-6.75%	+0.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.43%	-3.28%	-4.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.86%	4.12%	-1.26%

Volatility

EMMF vs. QGRW - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) has a higher volatility of 11.36% compared to WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund (QGRW) at 8.11%. This indicates that EMMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QGRW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMMF	QGRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.36%	8.11%	+3.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.63%	15.12%	+2.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.27%	18.70%	+0.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.03%	21.28%	-6.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.94%	21.28%	-4.34%

EMMF vs. QGRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMMF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than QGRW's 0.28% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMMF vs. QGRW - Dividend Comparison

EMMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, more than QGRW's 0.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	1.95%	2.45%	1.30%	1.62%	3.48%	2.64%	1.93%	2.93%	0.66%
QGRW WisdomTree U.S. Quality Growth Fund	0.08%	0.09%	0.14%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMMF and QGRW in my portfolio?

EMMF and QGRW have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMMF or QGRW?

EMMF has higher volatility (11.36%) compared to QGRW (8.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMMF dropped -32.57% vs QGRW's -24.40%.

Which ETF is better, EMMF or QGRW?

On 3-year performance, QGRW leads with 25.77% vs 21.46% for EMMF. On fees, QGRW is cheaper at 0.28% per year. On volatility, QGRW has been the lower-risk option at 8.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMMF or QGRW?

Over the 3-year period, QGRW has performed better with a 25.77% return vs 21.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMMF or QGRW?

QGRW is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for EMMF.

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

EMMF has the higher dividend yield at 1.95%, compared with 0.08% for QGRW.

What is the main difference between EMMF and QGRW?

EMMF is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while QGRW is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for EMMF and 0.28% for QGRW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 1.36), 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.