GEM vs. EMEQ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GEM (Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. GEM is passively managed, while EMEQ is actively managed. Over the past year, GEM returned 35.17% vs 110.88% for EMEQ. Their correlation of 0.90 means they have usually moved in the same direction. GEM charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for EMEQ.

Performance

GEM vs. EMEQ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GEM achieves a 17.80% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 53.76% 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%

EMEQ

• 1D: 1.33%
• 1M: -8.23%
• 6M: 30.45%
• YTD: 53.76%
• 1Y: 110.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 65.06%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$8.75M	$9.16M	$11.52M
GEM Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$6.22M	$6.08M	$5.34M

GEM vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GEM Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF	17.80%	33.43%	0.35%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	53.76%	69.78%	-0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between GEM and EMEQ is 0.92, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.90

The correlation between GEM and EMEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

GEM vs. EMEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GEM	EMEQ
Technology	38.4%	58.0%
Financial Services	19.6%	11.6%
Consumer Cyclical	7.4%	6.2%
Communication Services	6.1%	5.5%
Basic Materials	6.0%	1.6%
Industrials	5.5%	6.2%
Healthcare	3.0%	1.0%
Energy	2.9%	7.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	2.7%
Utilities	1.8%	0.9%
Real Estate	0.7%	-

Return for Risk

GEM vs. EMEQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

GEM

GEM Risk / Return Rank: 64
GEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
GEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
GEM Omega Ratio Rank: 64
GEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
GEM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 91
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 90
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). 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.

	GEM	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	2.69	-1.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.97	2.99	-1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.43	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.54	4.13	-1.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.58	15.08	-7.51

GEM vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is lower than the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GEM and EMEQ, 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

GEM vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GEM drawdown since its inception was -37.02%, which is greater than EMEQ's maximum drawdown of -26.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GEM and EMEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	GEM	EMEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.02%	-26.25%	-10.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.50%	-26.25%	+12.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.54%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.14%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.02%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.35%	-20.86%	+11.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.93%	-4.67%	-7.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.51%	7.18%	-2.67%

Volatility

GEM vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) is 8.66%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 14.87%. This indicates that GEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GEM	EMEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.66%	14.87%	-6.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.69%	37.54%	-15.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.75%	40.39%	-16.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.64%	34.15%	-15.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.35%	34.15%	-14.80%

GEM vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

GEM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

GEM vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

GEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, more than EMEQ's 1.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.79%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	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

Can I hold both GEM and EMEQ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, GEM and EMEQ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, GEM or EMEQ?

EMEQ has higher volatility (14.87%) compared to GEM (8.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GEM dropped -37.02% vs EMEQ's -26.25%.

Which ETF is better, GEM or EMEQ?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 110.88% vs 35.17% for GEM. On fees, GEM is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, GEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GEM or EMEQ?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 110.88% return vs 35.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GEM or EMEQ?

GEM is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GEM or EMEQ?

GEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.95%, compared with 1.79% for EMEQ.

What is the main difference between GEM and EMEQ?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GEM and 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.69 vs 1.44), 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.