EMMF vs. RNEM

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

EMMF (WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund) and RNEM (First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. EMMF is actively managed, while RNEM is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMMF returned 9.65%/yr vs 5.15%/yr for RNEM. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMMF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNEM.

Performance

EMMF vs. RNEM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMMF achieves a 17.19% return, which is significantly higher than RNEM's 1.18% return.

EMMF

• 1D: -1.63%
• 1M: -6.03%
• 6M: 10.60%
• YTD: 17.19%
• 1Y: 29.60%
• 3Y*: 18.20%
• 5Y*: 9.65%
• 10Y*: —

RNEM

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: -0.16%
• 6M: -0.69%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 1Y: 3.25%
• 3Y*: 5.95%
• 5Y*: 5.15%
• 10Y*: —

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

EMMF vs. RNEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	17.19%	21.22%	9.45%	20.59%	-13.47%	5.97%	9.25%	2.30%	-6.45%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	1.18%	15.58%	-1.47%	23.43%	-8.75%	6.16%	-8.16%	12.76%	-4.77%

Correlation

The correlation between EMMF and RNEM is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 10, 2018	0.72

The correlation between EMMF and RNEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMMF vs. RNEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMMF	RNEM
Technology	32.9%	6.4%
Consumer Cyclical	13.6%	9.9%
Financial Services	8.2%	35.0%
Communication Services	6.6%	8.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	6.0%
Industrials	3.8%	3.9%
Energy	2.1%	7.0%
Utilities	2.1%	3.5%
Basic Materials	1.9%	14.2%
Healthcare	0.3%	4.5%
Real Estate	-	0.8%

Return for Risk

EMMF vs. RNEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMMF

EMMF Risk / Return Rank: 59
EMMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
EMMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
EMMF Omega Ratio Rank: 59
EMMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
EMMF Martin Ratio Rank: 63

RNEM

RNEM Risk / Return Rank: 13
RNEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
RNEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
RNEM Omega Ratio Rank: 12
RNEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
RNEM Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. RNEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) and First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM). 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	RNEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	0.26	+1.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.96	0.46	+1.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.05	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.80	0.30	+2.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.85	0.81	+8.04

EMMF vs. RNEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is higher than the RNEM Sharpe Ratio of 0.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMMF and RNEM, 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. RNEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMMF drawdown since its inception was -32.57%, smaller than the maximum RNEM drawdown of -38.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMMF and RNEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMMF	RNEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.57%	-38.38%	+5.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.62%	-10.71%	+0.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.02%	-13.09%	-2.93%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.02%	-21.41%	-2.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.55%	-4.94%	-4.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.43%	-9.25%	+1.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.35%	4.02%	-0.67%

Volatility

EMMF vs. RNEM - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) has a higher volatility of 8.81% compared to First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) at 3.16%. This indicates that EMMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMMF	RNEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.81%	3.16%	+5.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.56%	10.90%	+7.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.10%	12.50%	+7.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.26%	14.48%	+0.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.03%	17.17%	-0.14%

EMMF vs. RNEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMMF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than RNEM's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMMF vs. RNEM - Dividend Comparison

EMMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.02%, less than RNEM's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	2.02%	2.45%	1.30%	1.62%	3.48%	2.64%	1.93%	2.93%	0.66%	0.00%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	2.35%	2.75%	3.45%	1.63%	2.99%	3.20%	3.01%	2.85%	2.85%	2.28%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMMF and RNEM in my portfolio?

EMMF and RNEM have a correlation of 0.75, 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 RNEM?

EMMF has higher volatility (8.81%) compared to RNEM (3.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMMF dropped -32.57% vs RNEM's -38.38%.

Which ETF is better, EMMF or RNEM?

On 5-year performance, EMMF leads with 9.65% vs 5.15% for RNEM. On fees, EMMF is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, RNEM has been the lower-risk option at 3.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMMF or RNEM?

Over the 5-year period, EMMF has performed better with a 9.65% return vs 5.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMMF or RNEM?

EMMF is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNEM.

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

RNEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 2.02% for EMMF.

What is the main difference between EMMF and RNEM?

They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for EMMF and 0.75% for RNEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.48 vs 0.26), 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.