EMXC vs. EQLT

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

EMXC (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF) and EQLT (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds from iShares - EMXC tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index while EQLT tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EMXC returned 55.63% vs 46.19% for EQLT. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMXC charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for EQLT.

Performance

EMXC vs. EQLT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMXC achieves a 32.80% return, which is significantly higher than EQLT's 24.36% return.

EMXC

• 1D: 1.79%
• 1M: -3.24%
• 6M: 26.73%
• YTD: 32.80%
• 1Y: 55.63%
• 3Y*: 24.38%
• 5Y*: 11.85%
• 10Y*: —

EQLT

• 1D: 1.05%
• 1M: -4.24%
• 6M: 19.81%
• YTD: 24.36%
• 1Y: 46.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMXC vs. EQLT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMXC iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF	32.80%	35.14%	-5.36%
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	24.36%	33.93%	-1.29%

Correlation

The correlation between EMXC and EQLT 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 6, 2024	0.88

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

EMXC vs. EQLT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMXC	EQLT
Technology	52.4%	36.1%
Financial Services	17.4%	17.4%
Industrials	6.9%	10.8%
Basic Materials	6.0%	6.8%
Consumer Cyclical	4.1%	10.1%
Energy	3.4%	3.7%
Communication Services	3.0%	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	3.2%
Utilities	1.9%	1.9%
Healthcare	1.8%	2.6%
Real Estate	0.8%	1.2%

Return for Risk

EMXC vs. EQLT — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMXC

EMXC Risk / Return Rank: 82
EMXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EMXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
EMXC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
EMXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
EMXC Martin Ratio Rank: 84

EQLT

EQLT Risk / Return Rank: 80
EQLT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
EQLT Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
EQLT Omega Ratio Rank: 78
EQLT Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
EQLT Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. EQLT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT). 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	EQLT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	2.01	+0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.61	2.61	0.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.36	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.88	3.87	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.40	13.45	-0.05

EMXC vs. EQLT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMXC Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the EQLT Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMXC and EQLT, 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. EQLT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMXC drawdown since its inception was -42.81%, which is greater than EQLT's maximum drawdown of -17.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMXC and EQLT.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMXC	EQLT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.81%	-17.38%	-25.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.41%	-12.00%	-2.41%
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	-9.90%	-7.24%	-2.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.13%	-3.67%	-6.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.16%	3.44%	+0.72%

Volatility

EMXC vs. EQLT - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC) has a higher volatility of 12.36% compared to iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT) at 7.48%. This indicates that EMXC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EQLT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMXC	EQLT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.36%	7.48%	+4.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.76%	21.06%	+3.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.41%	23.05%	+3.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.73%	21.29%	-2.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.37%	21.29%	-0.92%

EMXC vs. EQLT - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMXC has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than EQLT's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMXC vs. EQLT - Dividend Comparison

EMXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.00%, less than EQLT's 2.82% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMXC iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF	2.00%	2.82%	2.69%	1.83%	2.85%	1.78%	1.45%	3.25%	2.63%	0.99%
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	2.82%	3.10%	0.51%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMXC and EQLT in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, EMXC and EQLT 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, EMXC or EQLT?

EMXC has higher volatility (12.36%) compared to EQLT (7.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMXC dropped -42.81% vs EQLT's -17.38%.

Which ETF is better, EMXC or EQLT?

On 1-year performance, EMXC leads with 55.63% vs 46.19% for EQLT. On fees, EQLT is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, EQLT has been the lower-risk option at 7.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMXC or EQLT?

Over the 1-year period, EMXC has performed better with a 55.63% return vs 46.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMXC or EQLT?

EQLT is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for EMXC.

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

EQLT has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 2.00% for EMXC.

What is the main difference between EMXC and EQLT?

EMXC tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index, while EQLT tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor Select Index. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for EMXC and 0.35% for EQLT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMXC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 2.01), 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.