FDEM vs. GEME

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDEM (Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF) and GEME (Pacific North of South Global Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. FDEM is passively managed, while GEME is actively managed. Over the past year, FDEM returned 45.52% vs 82.30% for GEME. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FDEM charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GEME.

Performance

FDEM vs. GEME - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) and Pacific North of South Global Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (GEME). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDEM achieves a 22.58% return, which is significantly lower than GEME's 38.52% return.

FDEM

• 1D: -1.46%
• 1M: 7.69%
• YTD: 22.58%
• 6M: 24.26%
• 1Y: 45.52%
• 3Y*: 23.79%
• 5Y*: 9.43%
• 10Y*: —

GEME

• 1D: -1.23%
• 1M: 10.91%
• YTD: 38.52%
• 6M: 44.89%
• 1Y: 82.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDEM vs. GEME - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FDEM Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF	22.58%	24.09%
GEME Pacific North of South Global Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	38.52%	37.35%

Correlation

The correlation between FDEM and GEME is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 24, 2025	0.85

The correlation between FDEM and GEME has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FDEM vs. GEME — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDEM

FDEM Risk / Return Rank: 76
FDEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
FDEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
FDEM Omega Ratio Rank: 78
FDEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
FDEM Martin Ratio Rank: 74

GEME

GEME Risk / Return Rank: 93
GEME Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
GEME Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
GEME Omega Ratio Rank: 94
GEME Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
GEME Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

FDEM vs. GEME - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) and Pacific North of South Global Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (GEME). 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.

	FDEM	GEME	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.63	3.90	-1.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.46	4.67	-1.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.68	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.60	6.15	-2.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.12	24.06	-9.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDEM vs. GEME - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is lower than the GEME Sharpe Ratio of 3.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDEM and GEME, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FDEM	GEME	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.63	3.90	-1.26
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	2.66	-2.13

Drawdowns

FDEM vs. GEME - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDEM drawdown since its inception was -33.65%, which is greater than GEME's maximum drawdown of -16.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDEM and GEME.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDEM	GEME	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.65%	-16.86%	-16.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.70%	-13.46%	+0.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.04%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.46%	-1.23%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.84%	-2.30%	-6.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.23%	3.43%	-0.20%

Volatility

FDEM vs. GEME - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) is 7.26%, while Pacific North of South Global Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (GEME) has a volatility of 8.56%. This indicates that FDEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GEME based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDEM	GEME	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.26%	8.56%	-1.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.03%	17.91%	-2.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.36%	21.23%	-3.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.13%	22.95%	-6.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.91%	22.95%	-5.04%

FDEM vs. GEME - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDEM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than GEME's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDEM vs. GEME - Dividend Comparison

FDEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.66%, less than GEME's 5.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FDEM Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF	2.66%	3.23%	4.05%	4.41%	3.95%	2.71%	1.84%	2.39%
GEME Pacific North of South Global Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	5.06%	7.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDEM and GEME in my portfolio?

FDEM and GEME have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDEM or GEME?

GEME has higher volatility (8.56%) compared to FDEM (7.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDEM dropped -33.65% vs GEME's -16.86%.

Which ETF is better, FDEM or GEME?

On 1-year performance, GEME leads with 82.30% vs 45.52% for FDEM. On fees, FDEM is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, FDEM has been the lower-risk option at 7.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDEM or GEME?

Over the 1-year period, GEME has performed better with a 82.30% return vs 45.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDEM or GEME?

FDEM is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GEME.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDEM or GEME?

GEME has the higher dividend yield at 5.06%, compared with 2.66% for FDEM.

What is the main difference between FDEM and GEME?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Pacific AM. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for FDEM and 0.75% for GEME.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GEME currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.90 vs 2.63), 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.