EQLT vs. RNEM

Last updated Jul 12, 2026

EQLT (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF) and RNEM (First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - EQLT tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor Select Index while RNEM tracks the Nasdaq Riskalyze Emerging Markets Equity Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EQLT returned 48.20% vs 4.10% for RNEM. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EQLT charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNEM.

Performance

EQLT vs. RNEM - 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 Equity Select ETF (RNEM). 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 RNEM's 1.72% return.

EQLT

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

RNEM

• 1D: 1.01%
• 1M: 1.30%
• 6M: 0.41%
• YTD: 1.72%
• 1Y: 4.10%
• 3Y*: 7.59%
• 5Y*: 5.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

EQLT vs. RNEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	26.29%	33.93%	-1.29%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	1.72%	15.58%	-4.21%

Correlation

The correlation between EQLT and RNEM is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 6, 2024	0.78

The correlation between EQLT and RNEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

EQLT vs. RNEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EQLT	RNEM
Technology	36.1%	6.4%
Financial Services	17.4%	35.0%
Industrials	10.8%	3.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	9.9%
Basic Materials	6.8%	14.2%
Communication Services	6.3%	8.7%
Energy	3.7%	7.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	6.0%
Healthcare	2.6%	4.5%
Utilities	1.9%	3.5%
Real Estate	1.2%	0.8%

Return for Risk

EQLT vs. RNEM — 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

RNEM

RNEM Risk / Return Rank: 13
RNEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
RNEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
RNEM Omega Ratio Rank: 12
RNEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
RNEM Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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. RNEM - 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 Equity Select ETF (RNEM). 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	RNEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	0.24	+1.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.71	0.44	+2.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.05	+0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.99	0.28	+3.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.15	0.76	+13.39

EQLT vs. RNEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQLT Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is higher than the RNEM Sharpe Ratio of 0.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQLT and RNEM, 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. RNEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQLT drawdown since its inception was -17.38%, smaller than the maximum RNEM drawdown of -38.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQLT and RNEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQLT	RNEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.38%	-38.38%	+21.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.00%	-10.71%	-1.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.09%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.41%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.80%	-4.43%	-1.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.65%	-9.26%	+5.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	3.98%	-0.61%

Volatility

EQLT vs. RNEM - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF (EQLT) has a higher volatility of 8.07% compared to First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) at 3.37%. This indicates that EQLT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQLT	RNEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.07%	3.37%	+4.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.86%	10.85%	+10.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.88%	12.45%	+10.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.24%	14.46%	+6.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.24%	17.18%	+4.06%

EQLT vs. RNEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQLT has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than RNEM's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQLT vs. RNEM - Dividend Comparison

EQLT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.77%, more than RNEM's 2.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EQLT iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor ETF	2.77%	3.10%	0.51%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	2.33%	2.75%	3.45%	1.63%	2.99%	3.20%	3.01%	2.85%	2.85%	2.28%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQLT and RNEM in my portfolio?

EQLT and RNEM have a correlation of 0.76, 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 RNEM?

EQLT has higher volatility (8.07%) compared to RNEM (3.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EQLT dropped -17.38% vs RNEM's -38.38%.

Which ETF is better, EQLT or RNEM?

On 1-year performance, EQLT leads with 48.20% vs 4.10% for RNEM. On fees, EQLT is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RNEM has been the lower-risk option at 3.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EQLT or RNEM?

Over the 1-year period, EQLT has performed better with a 48.20% return vs 4.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EQLT or RNEM?

EQLT is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNEM.

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

EQLT has the higher dividend yield at 2.77%, compared with 2.33% for RNEM.

What is the main difference between EQLT and RNEM?

EQLT tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Quality Factor Select Index, while RNEM tracks Nasdaq Riskalyze Emerging Markets Equity Select Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EQLT and 0.75% for RNEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EQLT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 0.24), 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.