EMXC vs. EMEQ

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

EMXC (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF) and EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMXC is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index, while EMEQ is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Nomura. EMXC is passively managed, while EMEQ is actively managed. Over the past year, EMXC returned 79.53% vs 165.82% for EMEQ. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMXC charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for EMEQ.

Performance

EMXC vs. EMEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMXC achieves a 46.36% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 87.68% return.

EMXC

• 1D: 3.92%
• 1M: 11.28%
• YTD: 46.36%
• 6M: 50.72%
• 1Y: 79.53%
• 3Y*: 29.02%
• 5Y*: 14.15%
• 10Y*: —

EMEQ

• 1D: 6.25%
• 1M: 17.21%
• YTD: 87.68%
• 6M: 97.86%
• 1Y: 165.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMXC vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMXC iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF	46.36%	35.14%	-4.87%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	87.68%	69.78%	-0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between EMXC and EMEQ is 0.89, 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	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.87

The correlation between EMXC and EMEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMXC vs. EMEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMXC	EMEQ
Technology	52.4%	1.1%
Financial Services	17.4%	6.8%
Industrials	6.9%	0.3%
Basic Materials	6.0%	1.3%
Consumer Cyclical	4.1%	6.2%
Energy	3.4%	1.3%
Communication Services	3.0%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	3.8%
Utilities	1.9%	0.9%
Healthcare	1.8%	1.4%
Real Estate	0.8%	-

Return for Risk

EMXC vs. EMEQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMXC

EMXC Risk / Return Rank: 92
EMXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
EMXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
EMXC Omega Ratio Rank: 92
EMXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
EMXC Martin Ratio Rank: 92

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 96
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

EMXC vs. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). 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.

	EMXC	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.24	4.60	-1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.86	4.54	-0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.69	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.49	9.30	-3.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.12	34.68	-13.56

EMXC vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMXC Sharpe Ratio is 3.24, which is comparable to the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 4.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMXC and EMEQ, 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

EMXC vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMXC drawdown since its inception was -42.81%, which is greater than EMEQ's maximum drawdown of -19.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMXC and EMEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMXC	EMEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.81%	-19.99%	-22.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.41%	-17.91%	+3.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.12%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.91%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.16%	-4.03%	-6.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.74%	4.79%	-1.05%

Volatility

EMXC vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC) is 12.99%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 19.63%. This indicates that EMXC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMXC	EMEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.99%	19.63%	-6.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.41%	33.20%	-10.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.37%	36.20%	-11.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.16%	32.28%	-14.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.14%	32.28%	-12.14%

EMXC vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMXC has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMXC vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

EMXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.82%, more than EMEQ's 1.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.47%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EMXC iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF	1.82%	2.82%	2.69%	1.83%	2.85%	1.78%	1.45%	3.25%	2.63%	0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMXC and EMEQ in my portfolio?

EMXC and EMEQ have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMXC or EMEQ?

EMEQ has higher volatility (19.63%) compared to EMXC (12.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMXC dropped -42.81% vs EMEQ's -19.99%.

Which ETF is better, EMXC or EMEQ?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 165.82% vs 79.53% for EMXC. On fees, EMXC is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EMXC has been the lower-risk option at 12.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMXC or EMEQ?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 165.82% return vs 79.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMXC or EMEQ?

EMXC is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMXC or EMEQ?

EMXC has the higher dividend yield at 1.82%, compared with 1.47% for EMEQ.

What is the main difference between EMXC and EMEQ?

EMXC is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while EMEQ is Emerging Markets Diversified. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for EMXC and 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.60 vs 3.24), 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.