FPA vs. EEM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FPA (First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund) and EEM (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FPA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index, while EEM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FPA returned 11.25%/yr vs 9.93%/yr for EEM. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FPA charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.72%/yr for EEM.

Performance

FPA vs. EEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FPA achieves a 51.47% return, which is significantly higher than EEM's 27.80% return. Over the past 10 years, FPA has outperformed EEM with an annualized return of 11.25%, while EEM has yielded a comparatively lower 9.93% annualized return.

FPA

• 1D: -0.59%
• 1M: 9.98%
• YTD: 51.47%
• 6M: 51.19%
• 1Y: 82.43%
• 3Y*: 33.32%
• 5Y*: 13.09%
• 10Y*: 11.25%

EEM

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: 9.08%
• YTD: 27.80%
• 6M: 30.51%
• 1Y: 55.80%
• 3Y*: 23.95%
• 5Y*: 7.01%
• 10Y*: 9.93%

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

FPA vs. EEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	51.47%	43.16%	3.95%	9.97%	-14.55%	2.98%	13.43%	8.91%	-21.91%	35.81%
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF	27.80%	33.98%	6.49%	8.95%	-20.56%	-3.63%	17.02%	18.22%	-15.31%	37.26%

Correlation

The correlation between FPA and EEM 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.72
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2011	0.68

The correlation between FPA and EEM shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (5 years) to 0.76 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FPA vs. EEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FPA	EEM
Industrials	37.1%	6.2%
Technology	16.1%	43.6%
Financial Services	9.6%	17.5%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	8.1%
Real Estate	6.9%	0.9%
Energy	6.7%	3.3%
Utilities	5.7%	2.0%
Basic Materials	4.9%	6.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	2.7%
Communication Services	2.6%	5.7%
Healthcare	1.0%	2.5%

Return for Risk

FPA vs. EEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FPA

FPA Risk / Return Rank: 88
FPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
FPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FPA Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FPA Martin Ratio Rank: 89

EEM

EEM Risk / Return Rank: 81
EEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
EEM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
EEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
EEM Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

FPA vs. EEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM). 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.

	FPA	EEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.24	2.81	+0.44
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	3.62	+0.32
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	1.51	+0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.39	4.15	+1.24
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.96	15.99	+3.98
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FPA vs. EEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FPA Sharpe Ratio is 3.24, which is comparable to the EEM Sharpe Ratio of 2.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FPA and EEM, 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

	FPA	EEM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.24	2.81	+0.44
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55	0.37	+0.18
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50	0.49	+0.02
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.38	-0.05

Drawdowns

FPA vs. EEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FPA drawdown since its inception was -52.91%, smaller than the maximum EEM drawdown of -66.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPA and EEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FPA	EEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.91%	-66.43%	+13.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.37%	-13.52%	-1.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.66%	-17.29%	-3.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.21%	-37.71%	+2.50%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.91%	-39.82%	-13.09%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.12%	-1.24%	-2.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.49%	-16.02%	+2.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.14%	3.50%	+0.64%

Volatility

FPA vs. EEM - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) has a higher volatility of 12.96% compared to iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) at 8.52%. This indicates that FPA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FPA	EEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.96%	8.52%	+4.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.92%	17.42%	+4.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.55%	19.97%	+5.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.98%	18.91%	+5.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.39%	20.50%	+1.89%

FPA vs. EEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FPA has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than EEM's 0.72% expense ratio.

Dividends

FPA vs. EEM - Dividend Comparison

FPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.52%, more than EEM's 1.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF	1.74%	2.22%	2.43%	2.63%	2.50%	1.99%	1.45%	2.76%	2.24%	1.89%	1.89%	2.49%
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	3.52%	4.71%	3.40%	3.02%	4.22%	5.12%	1.59%	3.90%	2.81%	3.15%	2.42%	1.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FPA and EEM in my portfolio?

FPA and EEM 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, FPA or EEM?

FPA has higher volatility (12.96%) compared to EEM (8.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPA dropped -52.91% vs EEM's -66.43%.

Which ETF is better, FPA or EEM?

On 10-year performance, FPA leads with 11.25% vs 9.93% for EEM. On fees, EEM is cheaper at 0.72% per year. On volatility, EEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FPA or EEM?

Over the 10-year period, FPA has performed better with a 11.25% return vs 9.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FPA or EEM?

EEM is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FPA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FPA or EEM?

FPA has the higher dividend yield at 3.52%, compared with 1.74% for EEM.

What is the main difference between FPA and EEM?

FPA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while EEM is Emerging Markets Diversified. FPA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index, while EEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FPA and 0.72% for EEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FPA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.24 vs 2.81), 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.