FTHF vs. EEMS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FTHF (First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF) and EEMS (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds - FTHF tracks the Emerging Markets Human Flourishing Index while EEMS tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FTHF returned 99.98% vs 23.79% for EEMS. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FTHF charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.73%/yr for EEMS.

Performance

FTHF vs. EEMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FTHF achieves a 48.98% return, which is significantly higher than EEMS's 11.49% return.

FTHF

• 1D: -6.80%
• 1M: 6.57%
• YTD: 48.98%
• 6M: 51.53%
• 1Y: 99.98%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EEMS

• 1D: -4.01%
• 1M: -2.11%
• YTD: 11.49%
• 6M: 12.59%
• 1Y: 23.79%
• 3Y*: 15.45%
• 5Y*: 6.33%
• 10Y*: 9.32%

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

FTHF vs. EEMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF	48.98%	65.30%	-8.14%	18.14%
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	11.49%	19.78%	3.13%	12.70%

Correlation

The correlation between FTHF and EEMS is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2023	0.79

The correlation between FTHF and EEMS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

FTHF vs. EEMS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FTHF	EEMS
Technology	49.3%	26.4%
Financial Services	24.4%	9.9%
Basic Materials	9.2%	8.6%
Energy	5.3%	2.1%
Industrials	5.1%	18.2%
Consumer Defensive	3.0%	4.9%
Utilities	1.8%	2.6%
Communication Services	0.9%	2.9%
Consumer Cyclical	0.7%	9.9%
Healthcare	0.5%	8.7%
Real Estate	-	5.8%

Return for Risk

FTHF vs. EEMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FTHF

FTHF Risk / Return Rank: 87
FTHF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FTHF Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
FTHF Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FTHF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
FTHF Martin Ratio Rank: 86

EEMS

EEMS Risk / Return Rank: 40
EEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
EEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
EEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 38
EEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
EEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

FTHF vs. EEMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS). 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.

	FTHF	EEMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.79	1.25	+1.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.22	1.73	+1.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.52	1.24	+0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.16	2.20	+3.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.85	7.37	+9.48

FTHF vs. EEMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FTHF Sharpe Ratio is 2.79, which is higher than the EEMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.25. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTHF and EEMS, 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

FTHF vs. EEMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTHF drawdown since its inception was -17.36%, smaller than the maximum EEMS drawdown of -48.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTHF and EEMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FTHF	EEMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.36%	-48.89%	+31.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.31%	-10.87%	-5.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.71%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.07%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-48.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.80%	-5.08%	-1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.22%	-10.48%	+6.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.95%	3.24%	+2.71%

Volatility

FTHF vs. EEMS - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF) has a higher volatility of 17.38% compared to iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) at 9.86%. This indicates that FTHF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EEMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FTHF	EEMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	17.38%	9.86%	+7.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.89%	17.19%	+11.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	36.06%	19.11%	+16.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.89%	16.50%	+10.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.89%	18.12%	+8.77%

FTHF vs. EEMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FTHF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than EEMS's 0.73% expense ratio.

Dividends

FTHF vs. EEMS - Dividend Comparison

FTHF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.03%, more than EEMS's 2.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	2.86%	3.09%	2.60%	2.69%	0.89%	3.56%	2.14%	2.64%	3.06%	2.47%	2.51%	2.33%
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF	3.03%	4.40%	3.34%	0.51%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FTHF and EEMS in my portfolio?

FTHF and EEMS have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FTHF or EEMS?

FTHF has higher volatility (17.38%) compared to EEMS (9.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FTHF dropped -17.36% vs EEMS's -48.89%.

Which ETF is better, FTHF or EEMS?

On 1-year performance, FTHF leads with 99.98% vs 23.79% for EEMS. On fees, EEMS is cheaper at 0.73% per year. On volatility, EEMS has been the lower-risk option at 9.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FTHF or EEMS?

Over the 1-year period, FTHF has performed better with a 99.98% return vs 23.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FTHF or EEMS?

EEMS is cheaper with a 0.73% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for FTHF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FTHF or EEMS?

FTHF has the higher dividend yield at 3.03%, compared with 2.86% for EEMS.

What is the main difference between FTHF and EEMS?

FTHF tracks Emerging Markets Human Flourishing Index, while EEMS tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for FTHF and 0.73% for EEMS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FTHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 1.25), 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.