EMOP vs. XCEM

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

EMOP (AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF) and XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. EMOP is actively managed, while XCEM is passively managed. Over the past year, EMOP returned 43.07% vs 58.59% for XCEM. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMOP charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for XCEM.

Performance

EMOP vs. XCEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) and Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMOP achieves a 26.99% return, which is significantly lower than XCEM's 34.78% return.

EMOP

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 1.70%
• YTD: 26.99%
• 6M: 27.87%
• 1Y: 43.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XCEM

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: 4.66%
• YTD: 34.78%
• 6M: 36.63%
• 1Y: 58.59%
• 3Y*: 25.12%
• 5Y*: 11.58%
• 10Y*: 12.67%

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

EMOP vs. XCEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	26.99%	16.48%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	34.78%	21.34%

Correlation

The correlation between EMOP and XCEM is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	0.90

The correlation between EMOP and XCEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMOP vs. XCEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMOP	XCEM
Technology	30.3%	37.1%
Financial Services	24.0%	22.8%
Communication Services	12.3%	4.2%
Industrials	8.1%	9.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.8%	6.3%
Basic Materials	7.0%	6.4%
Utilities	2.8%	1.9%
Energy	2.6%	3.8%
Real Estate	2.3%	1.8%
Healthcare	1.6%	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	3.0%

Return for Risk

EMOP vs. XCEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMOP

EMOP Risk / Return Rank: 73
EMOP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
EMOP Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
EMOP Omega Ratio Rank: 74
EMOP Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
EMOP Martin Ratio Rank: 76

XCEM

XCEM Risk / Return Rank: 83
XCEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
XCEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
XCEM Omega Ratio Rank: 85
XCEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
XCEM Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

EMOP vs. XCEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) and Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM). 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.

	EMOP	XCEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.02	2.43	-0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.59	3.02	-0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.46	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.36	4.07	-0.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.49	15.62	-3.13

EMOP vs. XCEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMOP Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is comparable to the XCEM Sharpe Ratio of 2.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMOP and XCEM, 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

EMOP vs. XCEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMOP drawdown since its inception was -12.88%, smaller than the maximum XCEM drawdown of -41.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMOP and XCEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMOP	XCEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.88%	-41.24%	+28.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.88%	-14.46%	+1.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.92%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.57%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.24%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.94%	-5.93%	+0.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.01%	-8.57%	+6.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	3.76%	-0.30%

Volatility

EMOP vs. XCEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) is 10.75%, while Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a volatility of 14.01%. This indicates that EMOP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XCEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMOP	XCEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.75%	14.01%	-3.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.59%	22.56%	-2.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.65%	24.27%	-2.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.53%	18.60%	+2.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.53%	19.93%	+1.60%

EMOP vs. XCEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMOP has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than XCEM's 0.16% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMOP vs. XCEM - Dividend Comparison

EMOP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, less than XCEM's 2.41% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	0.85%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	2.41%	3.25%	2.76%	1.22%	2.42%	1.94%	1.63%	2.11%	2.70%	9.56%	1.24%	2.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMOP and XCEM in my portfolio?

EMOP and XCEM have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMOP or XCEM?

XCEM has higher volatility (14.01%) compared to EMOP (10.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMOP dropped -12.88% vs XCEM's -41.24%.

Which ETF is better, EMOP or XCEM?

On 1-year performance, XCEM leads with 58.59% vs 43.07% for EMOP. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, EMOP has been the lower-risk option at 10.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMOP or XCEM?

Over the 1-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 58.59% return vs 43.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMOP or XCEM?

XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for EMOP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMOP or XCEM?

XCEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.41%, compared with 0.85% for EMOP.

What is the main difference between EMOP and XCEM?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and Ameriprise Financial. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for EMOP and 0.16% for XCEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.43 vs 2.02), 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.