FPA vs. EEMA

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FPA (First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund) and EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - FPA tracks the NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index while EEMA tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FPA returned 11.32%/yr vs 10.80%/yr for EEMA. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FPA charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EEMA.

Performance

FPA vs. EEMA - 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 Asia ETF (EEMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FPA achieves a 52.36% return, which is significantly higher than EEMA's 27.78% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with FPA having a 11.32% annualized return and EEMA not far behind at 10.80%.

FPA

• 1D: -3.56%
• 1M: 9.83%
• YTD: 52.36%
• 6M: 52.58%
• 1Y: 83.84%
• 3Y*: 33.58%
• 5Y*: 13.37%
• 10Y*: 11.32%

EEMA

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: 9.00%
• YTD: 27.78%
• 6M: 30.96%
• 1Y: 56.77%
• 3Y*: 24.08%
• 5Y*: 7.05%
• 10Y*: 10.80%

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

FPA vs. EEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	52.36%	43.16%	3.95%	9.97%	-14.55%	2.98%	13.43%	8.91%	-21.91%	35.81%
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	27.78%	33.27%	10.23%	6.57%	-21.49%	-4.22%	25.17%	18.60%	-15.76%	43.41%

Correlation

The correlation between FPA and EEMA 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	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 10, 2012	0.67

The correlation between FPA and EEMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.62 (5 years) to 0.76 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FPA vs. EEMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FPA	EEMA
Industrials	37.1%	8.8%
Technology	16.1%	41.2%
Financial Services	9.6%	15.9%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	11.3%
Real Estate	6.9%	0.8%
Energy	6.7%	3.2%
Utilities	5.7%	1.8%
Basic Materials	4.9%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	2.8%
Communication Services	2.6%	6.0%
Healthcare	1.0%	3.7%

Return for Risk

FPA vs. EEMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

FPA

FPA Risk / Return Rank: 89
FPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
FPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FPA Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
FPA Martin Ratio Rank: 90

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 81
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 82
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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. EEMA - 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 Asia ETF (EEMA). 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	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.30	2.80	+0.50
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.99	3.64	+0.34
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.50	+0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.61	3.99	+1.62
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	20.86	15.03	+5.83
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. EEMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FPA Sharpe Ratio is 3.30, which is comparable to the EEMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FPA and EEMA, 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	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.30	2.80	+0.50
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56	0.35	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.51	0.52	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.37	-0.04

Drawdowns

FPA vs. EEMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FPA drawdown since its inception was -52.91%, which is greater than EEMA's maximum drawdown of -44.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPA and EEMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	FPA	EEMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.91%	-44.18%	-8.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.37%	-14.30%	-1.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.66%	-20.23%	-0.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.21%	-40.67%	+5.46%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.91%	-44.18%	-8.73%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.56%	-1.17%	-2.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.49%	-13.97%	+0.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.13%	3.79%	+0.34%

Volatility

FPA vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) has a higher volatility of 12.98% compared to iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) at 8.53%. This indicates that FPA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EEMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FPA	EEMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.98%	8.53%	+4.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.92%	17.40%	+4.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.56%	20.39%	+5.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.98%	20.41%	+3.57%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.40%	20.87%	+1.53%

FPA vs. EEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FPA has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than EEMA's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FPA vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison

FPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.50%, more than EEMA's 1.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.16%	1.48%	1.74%	2.02%	1.78%	2.19%	1.15%	1.86%	2.17%	1.74%	1.74%	2.44%
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	3.50%	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 EEMA in my portfolio?

FPA and EEMA 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 EEMA?

FPA has higher volatility (12.98%) compared to EEMA (8.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPA dropped -52.91% vs EEMA's -44.18%.

Which ETF is better, FPA or EEMA?

On 10-year performance, FPA leads with 11.32% vs 10.80% for EEMA. On fees, EEMA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EEMA has been the lower-risk option at 8.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FPA or EEMA?

Over the 10-year period, FPA has performed better with a 11.32% return vs 10.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FPA or EEMA?

EEMA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FPA.

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

FPA has the higher dividend yield at 3.50%, compared with 1.16% for EEMA.

What is the main difference between FPA and EEMA?

FPA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index, while EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FPA and 0.50% for EEMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FPA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.30 vs 2.80), 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.