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

Performance

GEM vs. EMXC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC). 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 26.12% return, which is significantly lower than EMXC's 39.90% return.


GEM

1D
-1.13%
1M
6.24%
YTD
26.12%
6M
29.03%
1Y
50.97%
3Y*
23.48%
5Y*
7.67%
10Y*
9.79%

EMXC

1D
-1.28%
1M
8.45%
YTD
39.90%
6M
45.10%
1Y
73.97%
3Y*
28.52%
5Y*
12.47%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GEM vs. EMXC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GEM
Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF
26.12%33.43%6.66%11.82%-21.33%-0.19%13.23%17.79%-14.25%9.30%
EMXC
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF
39.90%35.14%2.68%18.96%-19.56%8.54%12.76%15.80%-12.96%7.01%

Correlation

The correlation between GEM and EMXC is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.95

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.91

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.91

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 27, 2017

0.88

The correlation between GEM and EMXC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

GEM vs. EMXC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GEM
EMXC

Financial Services

34.0%
19.6%

Technology

14.1%
45.0%

Consumer Cyclical

13.0%
4.5%

Basic Materials

8.7%
6.8%

Industrials

7.5%
8.3%

Healthcare

5.4%
2.2%

Communication Services

4.5%
3.4%

Utilities

4.3%
2.3%

Consumer Defensive

4.2%
2.9%

Real Estate

1.5%
1.0%

Energy

1.3%
4.2%

Financial Services

GEM
34.0%
EMXC
19.6%

Technology

GEM
14.1%
EMXC
45.0%

Consumer Cyclical

GEM
13.0%
EMXC
4.5%

Basic Materials

GEM
8.7%
EMXC
6.8%

Industrials

GEM
7.5%
EMXC
8.3%

Healthcare

GEM
5.4%
EMXC
2.2%

Communication Services

GEM
4.5%
EMXC
3.4%

Utilities

GEM
4.3%
EMXC
2.3%

Consumer Defensive

GEM
4.2%
EMXC
2.9%

Real Estate

GEM
1.5%
EMXC
1.0%

Energy

GEM
1.3%
EMXC
4.2%

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. EMXC — Risk / Return Rank

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

GEM
GEM Risk / Return Rank: 7979
Overall Rank
GEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
GEM Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
GEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
GEM Martin Ratio Rank: 7777
Martin Ratio Rank

EMXC
EMXC Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
EMXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 9090
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMXC Omega Ratio Rank: 9292
Omega Ratio Rank
EMXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMXC Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

GEM vs. EMXC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC). 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.


GEMEMXCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.80

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.75

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.60

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.80

5.16

-1.36

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.69

20.85

-6.17

GEM vs. EMXC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is comparable to the EMXC Sharpe Ratio of 3.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GEM and EMXC, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


GEMEMXCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.63

3.42

-0.80

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.44

0.72

-0.28

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.52

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.52

0.54

-0.02

Drawdowns

GEM vs. EMXC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GEM drawdown since its inception was -37.02%, smaller than the maximum EMXC drawdown of -42.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GEM and EMXC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GEMEMXCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-37.02%

-42.81%

+5.79%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.50%

-14.41%

+0.91%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.54%

-19.12%

+2.58%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.43%

-28.91%

-6.52%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-37.02%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.16%

-2.27%

+0.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.01%

-10.19%

-1.82%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.48%

3.56%

-0.08%

Volatility

GEM vs. EMXC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) is 8.61%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC) has a volatility of 9.83%. This indicates that GEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMXC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GEMEMXCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.61%

9.83%

-1.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.01%

19.41%

-2.40%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.55%

21.75%

-2.20%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.71%

17.45%

+0.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.03%

19.82%

-0.79%

GEM vs. EMXC - Expense Ratio Comparison

GEM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than EMXC's 0.49% expense ratio.


Dividends

GEM vs. EMXC - Dividend Comparison

GEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.83%, less than EMXC's 2.01% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMXC
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF
2.01%2.82%2.69%1.83%2.85%1.78%1.45%3.25%2.63%0.99%0.00%0.00%
GEM
Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF
1.83%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


With a correlation of 0.95, GEM and EMXC 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.

EMXC has higher volatility (9.83%) compared to GEM (8.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GEM dropped -37.02% vs EMXC's -42.81%.

On 5-year performance, EMXC leads with 12.47% vs 7.67% for GEM. On fees, GEM is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, GEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, EMXC has performed better with a 12.47% return vs 7.67%. 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 0.49% for EMXC.

EMXC has the higher dividend yield at 2.01%, compared with 1.83% for GEM.

GEM tracks Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity Index, while EMXC tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GEM and 0.49% for EMXC.

EMXC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.42 vs 2.63), 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 EMXC

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