PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GEM vs. EMDV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GEM vs. EMDV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) and ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GEM achieves a 17.80% return, which is significantly higher than EMDV's 1.51% return. Over the past 10 years, GEM has outperformed EMDV with an annualized return of 8.48%, while EMDV has yielded a comparatively lower 1.95% annualized return.


GEM

1D
0.72%
1M
-2.35%
6M
8.93%
YTD
17.80%
1Y
35.17%
3Y*
18.77%
5Y*
7.71%
10Y*
8.48%
ALL TIME*
9.14%

EMDV

1D
-0.18%
1M
4.30%
6M
0.72%
YTD
1.51%
1Y
6.10%
3Y*
1.66%
5Y*
-1.50%
10Y*
1.95%
ALL TIME*
4.01%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$3.04K$6.93K$10.37K
$6.22M$6.08M$5.34M

GEM vs. EMDV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GEM
Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF
17.80%33.43%6.66%11.82%-21.33%-0.19%13.23%17.79%-14.25%36.43%
EMDV
ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF
1.51%11.90%0.06%-1.03%-18.19%1.11%-0.09%14.93%-7.52%26.98%

Correlation

The correlation between GEM and EMDV is 0.69, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.69

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.76

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.82

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.82

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2016

0.81

The correlation between GEM and EMDV shifts across timeframes, from 0.69 (1 year) to 0.82 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GEM vs. EMDV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GEM
EMDV

Technology

38.4%
22.8%

Financial Services

19.6%
24.0%

Consumer Cyclical

7.4%
6.7%

Communication Services

6.1%
5.8%

Basic Materials

6.0%
2.5%

Industrials

5.5%
6.7%

Healthcare

3.0%
8.4%

Energy

2.9%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.9%
14.4%

Utilities

1.8%
8.8%

Real Estate

0.7%

-

Technology

GEM
38.4%
EMDV
22.8%

Financial Services

GEM
19.6%
EMDV
24.0%

Consumer Cyclical

GEM
7.4%
EMDV
6.7%

Communication Services

GEM
6.1%
EMDV
5.8%

Basic Materials

GEM
6.0%
EMDV
2.5%

Industrials

GEM
5.5%
EMDV
6.7%

Healthcare

GEM
3.0%
EMDV
8.4%

Energy

GEM
2.9%
EMDV

-

Consumer Defensive

GEM
2.9%
EMDV
14.4%

Utilities

GEM
1.8%
EMDV
8.8%

Real Estate

GEM
0.7%
EMDV

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

GEM vs. EMDV — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GEM
GEM Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
GEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
GEM Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
GEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
GEM Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank

EMDV
EMDV Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
EMDV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMDV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMDV Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
EMDV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMDV Martin Ratio Rank: 2525
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GEM vs. EMDV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) and ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV). 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.


GEMEMDVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.94

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.18

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.10

+0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.54

0.81

+1.73

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.58

1.92

+5.66

GEM vs. EMDV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is higher than the EMDV Sharpe Ratio of 0.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GEM and EMDV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

GEM vs. EMDV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GEM drawdown since its inception was -37.02%, smaller than the maximum EMDV drawdown of -39.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GEM and EMDV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GEMEMDVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-37.02%

-39.20%

+2.18%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.50%

-7.24%

-6.26%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.54%

-20.71%

+4.17%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.14%

-33.37%

+0.23%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.02%

-39.20%

+2.18%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.35%

-14.51%

+5.16%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.93%

-13.59%

+1.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.51%

3.04%

+1.47%

Volatility

GEM vs. EMDV - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) has a higher volatility of 8.66% compared to ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF (EMDV) at 3.09%. This indicates that GEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMDV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GEMEMDVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.66%

3.09%

+5.57%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.69%

9.93%

+11.76%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.75%

11.68%

+12.07%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.64%

15.41%

+3.23%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.35%

17.99%

+1.36%

GEM vs. EMDV - Expense Ratio Comparison

GEM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than EMDV's 0.60% expense ratio.


Dividends

GEM vs. EMDV - Dividend Comparison

GEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, more than EMDV's 1.90% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMDV
ProShares MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Growers ETF
1.90%2.46%2.79%1.88%3.68%2.12%3.12%2.38%1.27%2.09%2.87%0.00%
GEM
Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF
1.95%2.30%2.58%2.97%2.96%3.00%1.63%3.13%2.08%1.81%1.98%0.25%

Frequently Asked Questions


GEM and EMDV have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GEM has higher volatility (8.66%) compared to EMDV (3.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GEM dropped -37.02% vs EMDV's -39.20%.

On 10-year performance, GEM leads with 8.48% vs 1.95% for EMDV. On fees, GEM is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, EMDV has been the lower-risk option at 3.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, GEM has performed better with a 8.48% return vs 1.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GEM is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for EMDV.

GEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.95%, compared with 1.90% for EMDV.

GEM tracks Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity Index, while EMDV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Dividend Masters Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GEM and 0.60% for EMDV.

GEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.44 vs 0.50), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for GEM and EMDV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer