EQLT vs. BKEM

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

EQLT (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF) and BKEM (BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - EQLT tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor Select Index while BKEM tracks the Morningstar Emerging Markets Large Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EQLT returned 48.20% vs 41.94% for BKEM. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EQLT charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.11%/yr for BKEM.

Performance

EQLT vs. BKEM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQLT achieves a 26.29% return, which is significantly higher than BKEM's 24.62% return.

EQLT

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: -2.76%
• 6M: 21.68%
• YTD: 26.29%
• 1Y: 48.20%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BKEM

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: -1.26%
• 6M: 19.40%
• YTD: 24.62%
• 1Y: 41.94%
• 3Y*: 21.47%
• 5Y*: 7.35%
• 10Y*: —

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

EQLT vs. BKEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	26.29%	33.93%	-1.29%
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	24.62%	30.55%	0.04%

Correlation

The correlation between EQLT and BKEM is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 6, 2024	0.93

The correlation between EQLT and BKEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

EQLT vs. BKEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EQLT	BKEM
Technology	36.1%	43.0%
Financial Services	17.4%	16.9%
Industrials	10.8%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	8.7%
Basic Materials	6.8%	5.7%
Communication Services	6.3%	5.8%
Energy	3.7%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	2.6%
Healthcare	2.6%	2.7%
Utilities	1.9%	2.0%
Real Estate	1.2%	1.1%

Return for Risk

EQLT vs. BKEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EQLT

EQLT Risk / Return Rank: 83
EQLT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
EQLT Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
EQLT Omega Ratio Rank: 81
EQLT Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
EQLT Martin Ratio Rank: 86

BKEM

BKEM Risk / Return Rank: 72
BKEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BKEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
BKEM Omega Ratio Rank: 73
BKEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
BKEM Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

EQLT vs. BKEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM). 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.

	EQLT	BKEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	1.84	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.71	2.39	+0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.34	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.99	3.18	+0.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.15	10.97	+3.17

EQLT vs. BKEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQLT Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the BKEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQLT and BKEM, 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

EQLT vs. BKEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQLT drawdown since its inception was -17.38%, smaller than the maximum BKEM drawdown of -39.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQLT and BKEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQLT	BKEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.38%	-39.48%	+22.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.00%	-13.11%	+1.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.38%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.80%	-5.63%	-0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.65%	-15.81%	+12.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	3.79%	-0.42%

Volatility

EQLT vs. BKEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT) is 8.07%, while BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) has a volatility of 10.31%. This indicates that EQLT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BKEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQLT	BKEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.07%	10.31%	-2.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.86%	20.58%	+0.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.88%	22.56%	+0.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.24%	19.42%	+1.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.24%	19.60%	+1.64%

EQLT vs. BKEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQLT has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than BKEM's 0.11% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQLT vs. BKEM - Dividend Comparison

EQLT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.77%, more than BKEM's 1.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.88%	2.25%	2.76%	3.02%	3.15%	2.22%	1.78%
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	2.77%	3.10%	0.51%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQLT and BKEM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, EQLT and BKEM 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, EQLT or BKEM?

BKEM has higher volatility (10.31%) compared to EQLT (8.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EQLT dropped -17.38% vs BKEM's -39.48%.

Which ETF is better, EQLT or BKEM?

On 1-year performance, EQLT leads with 48.20% vs 41.94% for BKEM. On fees, BKEM is cheaper at 0.11% per year. On volatility, EQLT has been the lower-risk option at 8.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EQLT or BKEM?

Over the 1-year period, EQLT has performed better with a 48.20% return vs 41.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EQLT or BKEM?

BKEM is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EQLT.

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

EQLT has the higher dividend yield at 2.77%, compared with 1.88% for BKEM.

What is the main difference between EQLT and BKEM?

EQLT tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor Select Index, while BKEM tracks Morningstar Emerging Markets Large Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and BNY Mellon. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EQLT and 0.11% for BKEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EQLT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.84), 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.