FSAMX vs. GLLSX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FSAMX (Strategic Advisers Emerging Markets Fund) and GLLSX (abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Over the past 10 years, FSAMX returned 11.34%/yr vs 15.05%/yr for GLLSX. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FSAMX charges 0.33%/yr vs 1.23%/yr for GLLSX.

Performance

FSAMX vs. GLLSX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Strategic Advisers Emerging Markets Fund (FSAMX) and abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FSAMX achieves a 33.36% return, which is significantly lower than GLLSX's 46.58% return. Over the past 10 years, FSAMX has underperformed GLLSX with an annualized return of 11.34%, while GLLSX has yielded a comparatively higher 15.05% annualized return.

FSAMX

• 1D: 1.36%
• 1M: 11.70%
• YTD: 33.36%
• 6M: 36.63%
• 1Y: 64.62%
• 3Y*: 27.01%
• 5Y*: 8.90%
• 10Y*: 11.34%

GLLSX

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 11.34%
• YTD: 46.58%
• 6M: 50.65%
• 1Y: 88.61%
• 3Y*: 29.36%
• 5Y*: 18.30%
• 10Y*: 15.05%

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

FSAMX vs. GLLSX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FSAMX Strategic Advisers Emerging Markets Fund	33.36%	34.09%	8.34%	11.94%	-22.32%	-2.15%	20.39%	21.87%	-17.13%	38.40%
GLLSX abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	46.58%	34.81%	0.73%	21.35%	-23.04%	36.50%	15.93%	23.64%	-11.50%	23.06%

Correlation

The correlation between FSAMX and GLLSX is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.79
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 6, 2012	0.80

The correlation between FSAMX and GLLSX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FSAMX vs. GLLSX — Risk / Return Rank

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

FSAMX

FSAMX Risk / Return Rank: 96
FSAMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FSAMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
FSAMX Omega Ratio Rank: 95
FSAMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
FSAMX Martin Ratio Rank: 96

GLLSX

GLLSX Risk / Return Rank: 96
GLLSX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
GLLSX Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
GLLSX Omega Ratio Rank: 94
GLLSX Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GLLSX Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

FSAMX vs. GLLSX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Strategic Advisers Emerging Markets Fund (FSAMX) and abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX). 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.

	FSAMX	GLLSX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.32	4.14	+0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.38	4.78	+0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.76	1.74	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.17	6.17	0.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.40	24.54	-0.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FSAMX vs. GLLSX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FSAMX Sharpe Ratio is 4.32, which is comparable to the GLLSX Sharpe Ratio of 4.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FSAMX and GLLSX, 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

	FSAMX	GLLSX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.32	4.14	+0.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	1.02	-0.49
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.64	0.85	-0.20
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	0.69	-0.34

Drawdowns

FSAMX vs. GLLSX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FSAMX drawdown since its inception was -40.87%, which is greater than GLLSX's maximum drawdown of -32.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSAMX and GLLSX.

Drawdown Indicators

	FSAMX	GLLSX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.87%	-32.59%	-8.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.04%	-14.39%	+1.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.77%	-20.95%	+4.18%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.64%	-30.02%	-8.62%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.87%	-32.59%	-8.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.93%	-7.92%	-6.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.25%	3.61%	-0.36%

Volatility

FSAMX vs. GLLSX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Strategic Advisers Emerging Markets Fund (FSAMX) is 7.52%, while abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX) has a volatility of 9.95%. This indicates that FSAMX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLLSX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FSAMX	GLLSX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.52%	9.95%	-2.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.80%	19.05%	-3.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.67%	21.43%	-2.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.55%	18.09%	-0.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.97%	17.80%	+0.17%

FSAMX vs. GLLSX - Expense Ratio Comparison

FSAMX has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than GLLSX's 1.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

FSAMX vs. GLLSX - Dividend Comparison

FSAMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.64%, more than GLLSX's 1.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FSAMX Strategic Advisers Emerging Markets Fund	4.64%	2.38%	2.53%	2.57%	2.64%	3.04%	0.99%	2.09%	1.67%	1.30%	1.22%	1.35%
GLLSX abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	1.28%	1.88%	0.74%	0.77%	29.32%	22.85%	0.00%	3.38%	9.47%	8.40%	1.09%	0.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FSAMX and GLLSX in my portfolio?

FSAMX and GLLSX have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FSAMX or GLLSX?

GLLSX has higher volatility (9.95%) compared to FSAMX (7.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FSAMX dropped -40.87% vs GLLSX's -32.59%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FSAMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.32 vs 4.14), 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.