EQLT vs. FEM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EQLT (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF) and FEM (First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - EQLT tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor Select Index while FEM tracks the NASDAQ AlphaDEX EM Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EQLT returned 53.56% vs 35.75% for FEM. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EQLT charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FEM.

Performance

EQLT vs. FEM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQLT achieves a 27.04% return, which is significantly higher than FEM's 16.29% return.

EQLT

• 1D: -4.53%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 27.04%
• 6M: 27.81%
• 1Y: 53.56%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FEM

• 1D: -3.61%
• 1M: -2.59%
• YTD: 16.29%
• 6M: 15.74%
• 1Y: 35.75%
• 3Y*: 19.09%
• 5Y*: 6.91%
• 10Y*: 9.60%

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

EQLT vs. FEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	27.04%	33.93%	-1.29%
FEM First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund	16.29%	28.36%	-1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between EQLT and FEM is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 6, 2024	0.80

The correlation between EQLT and FEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

EQLT vs. FEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EQLT	FEM
Technology	36.1%	28.4%
Financial Services	17.4%	6.4%
Industrials	10.8%	19.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	5.7%
Basic Materials	6.8%	7.8%
Communication Services	6.3%	4.6%
Energy	3.7%	12.9%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	2.9%
Healthcare	2.6%	2.8%
Utilities	1.9%	6.1%
Real Estate	1.2%	2.6%

Return for Risk

EQLT vs. FEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EQLT

EQLT Risk / Return Rank: 81
EQLT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
EQLT Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
EQLT Omega Ratio Rank: 79
EQLT Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
EQLT Martin Ratio Rank: 87

FEM

FEM Risk / Return Rank: 66
FEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
FEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
FEM Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FEM 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. FEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT) and First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund (FEM). 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	FEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.36	1.90	+0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.00	2.42	+0.58
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.34	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.49	3.86	+0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.33	13.27	+4.07

EQLT vs. FEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQLT Sharpe Ratio is 2.36, which is comparable to the FEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQLT and FEM, 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. FEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQLT drawdown since its inception was -17.38%, smaller than the maximum FEM drawdown of -46.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQLT and FEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQLT	FEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.38%	-46.23%	+28.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.00%	-9.31%	-2.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.79%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.72%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.23%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.24%	-5.81%	+0.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.59%	-15.00%	+11.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.10%	2.70%	+0.40%

Volatility

EQLT vs. FEM - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT) has a higher volatility of 10.59% compared to First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund (FEM) at 8.76%. This indicates that EQLT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQLT	FEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.59%	8.76%	+1.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.74%	16.30%	+4.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.82%	18.88%	+3.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.35%	18.67%	+2.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.35%	20.97%	+0.38%

EQLT vs. FEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQLT has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than FEM's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQLT vs. FEM - Dividend Comparison

EQLT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.62%, less than FEM's 2.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	2.62%	3.10%	0.51%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FEM First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund	2.67%	3.13%	3.66%	4.96%	6.15%	4.15%	2.68%	3.31%	3.52%	2.45%	2.25%	3.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQLT and FEM in my portfolio?

EQLT and FEM have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EQLT or FEM?

EQLT has higher volatility (10.59%) compared to FEM (8.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EQLT dropped -17.38% vs FEM's -46.23%.

Which ETF is better, EQLT or FEM?

On 1-year performance, EQLT leads with 53.56% vs 35.75% for FEM. On fees, EQLT is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, FEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EQLT or FEM?

Over the 1-year period, EQLT has performed better with a 53.56% return vs 35.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EQLT or FEM?

EQLT is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FEM.

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

FEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 2.62% for EQLT.

What is the main difference between EQLT and FEM?

EQLT tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor Select Index, while FEM tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX EM Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EQLT and 0.80% for FEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EQLT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.90), 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.