GEM vs. QAT

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GEM (Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and QAT (iShares MSCI Qatar ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - GEM tracks the Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity Index while QAT tracks the MSCI All Qatar Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GEM returned 10.51%/yr vs 4.48%/yr for QAT. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GEM charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QAT.

Performance

GEM vs. QAT - 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 Qatar ETF (QAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GEM achieves a 29.96% return, which is significantly higher than QAT's 1.40% return. Over the past 10 years, GEM has outperformed QAT with an annualized return of 10.51%, while QAT has yielded a comparatively lower 4.48% annualized return.

GEM

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 8.42%
• YTD: 29.96%
• 6M: 31.86%
• 1Y: 54.83%
• 3Y*: 24.71%
• 5Y*: 8.85%
• 10Y*: 10.51%

QAT

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 2.48%
• YTD: 1.40%
• 6M: 1.29%
• 1Y: 8.99%
• 3Y*: 5.98%
• 5Y*: 3.69%
• 10Y*: 4.48%

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

GEM vs. QAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GEM Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF	29.96%	33.43%	6.66%	11.82%	-21.33%	-0.19%	13.23%	17.79%	-14.25%	36.43%
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	1.40%	8.81%	5.20%	2.72%	-7.23%	14.42%	6.94%	-0.44%	20.03%	-11.66%

Correlation

The correlation between GEM and QAT is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2015	0.34

GEM vs. QAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GEM	QAT
Technology	43.5%	1.0%
Financial Services	18.6%	55.5%
Consumer Cyclical	8.2%	0.7%
Communication Services	6.4%	6.3%
Basic Materials	6.4%	12.6%
Industrials	5.6%	8.4%
Energy	3.0%	7.6%
Healthcare	2.9%	0.8%
Consumer Defensive	2.8%	0.6%
Utilities	1.8%	2.5%
Real Estate	0.8%	4.0%

Return for Risk

GEM vs. QAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

GEM

GEM Risk / Return Rank: 81
GEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
GEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
GEM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
GEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
GEM Martin Ratio Rank: 80

QAT

QAT Risk / Return Rank: 19
QAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
QAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
QAT Omega Ratio Rank: 20
QAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
QAT Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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. QAT - 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 Qatar ETF (QAT). 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	QAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.57	0.68	+1.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.28	1.06	+2.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.14	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.08	0.85	+3.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.13	1.57	+13.56

GEM vs. QAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.57, which is higher than the QAT Sharpe Ratio of 0.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GEM and QAT, 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. QAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GEM drawdown since its inception was -37.02%, smaller than the maximum QAT drawdown of -45.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GEM and QAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	GEM	QAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.02%	-45.21%	+8.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.50%	-10.60%	-2.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.54%	-17.41%	+0.87%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.10%	-33.17%	-1.93%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.02%	-34.04%	-2.98%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-11.21%	+11.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.97%	-19.15%	+7.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.64%	5.74%	-2.10%

Volatility

GEM vs. QAT - Volatility Comparison

Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) has a higher volatility of 10.70% compared to iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) at 5.69%. This indicates that GEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GEM	QAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.70%	5.69%	+5.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.31%	11.07%	+8.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.48%	13.27%	+8.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.18%	15.07%	+3.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.22%	17.56%	+1.66%

GEM vs. QAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

GEM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than QAT's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

GEM vs. QAT - Dividend Comparison

GEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, less than QAT's 4.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GEM Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.77%	2.30%	2.58%	2.97%	2.96%	3.00%	1.63%	3.13%	2.08%	1.81%	1.98%	0.25%
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	4.61%	3.51%	5.90%	3.92%	4.78%	2.33%	2.63%	3.57%	4.63%	4.10%	3.51%	4.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GEM and QAT in my portfolio?

GEM and QAT have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GEM or QAT?

GEM has higher volatility (10.70%) compared to QAT (5.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GEM dropped -37.02% vs QAT's -45.21%.

Which ETF is better, GEM or QAT?

On 10-year performance, GEM leads with 10.51% vs 4.48% for QAT. On fees, GEM is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 5.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GEM or QAT?

Over the 10-year period, GEM has performed better with a 10.51% return vs 4.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GEM or QAT?

GEM is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for QAT.

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

QAT has the higher dividend yield at 4.61%, compared with 1.77% for GEM.

What is the main difference between GEM and QAT?

GEM tracks Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity Index, while QAT tracks MSCI All Qatar Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GEM and 0.59% for QAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 0.68), 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.