GEM vs. XCEM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GEM (Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - GEM tracks the Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity Index while XCEM tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GEM returned 10.00%/yr vs 12.99%/yr for XCEM. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GEM charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for XCEM.

Performance

GEM vs. XCEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) and Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GEM achieves a 27.56% return, which is significantly lower than XCEM's 38.32% return. Over the past 10 years, GEM has underperformed XCEM with an annualized return of 10.00%, while XCEM has yielded a comparatively higher 12.99% annualized return.

GEM

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 9.44%
• YTD: 27.56%
• 6M: 30.41%
• 1Y: 54.83%
• 3Y*: 23.85%
• 5Y*: 7.91%
• 10Y*: 10.00%

XCEM

• 1D: -1.25%
• 1M: 12.13%
• YTD: 38.32%
• 6M: 44.13%
• 1Y: 71.14%
• 3Y*: 26.37%
• 5Y*: 11.95%
• 10Y*: 12.99%

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

GEM vs. XCEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GEM Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF	27.56%	33.43%	6.66%	11.82%	-21.33%	-0.19%	13.23%	17.79%	-14.25%	36.43%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	38.32%	34.05%	0.42%	19.96%	-17.59%	7.87%	9.47%	19.74%	-11.75%	34.78%

Correlation

The correlation between GEM and XCEM is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2015	0.81

The correlation between GEM and XCEM shifts across timeframes, from 0.81 (all time) to 0.94 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GEM vs. XCEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GEM	XCEM
Financial Services	34.0%	7.7%
Technology	14.1%	1.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.0%	1.1%
Basic Materials	8.7%	0.7%
Industrials	7.5%	0.4%
Healthcare	5.4%	0.1%
Communication Services	4.5%	4.2%
Utilities	4.3%	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	0.3%
Real Estate	1.5%	0.0%
Energy	1.3%	0.2%

Return for Risk

GEM vs. XCEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GEM

GEM Risk / Return Rank: 82
GEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
GEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
GEM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
GEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
GEM Martin Ratio Rank: 80

XCEM

XCEM Risk / Return Rank: 90
XCEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
XCEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
XCEM Omega Ratio Rank: 91
XCEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
XCEM Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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. XCEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) and Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM). 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.

	GEM	XCEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.82	3.42	-0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.68	4.27	-0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.61	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.08	4.95	-0.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.81	19.98	-4.17
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GEM vs. XCEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.82, which is comparable to the XCEM Sharpe Ratio of 3.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GEM and XCEM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GEM	XCEM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.82	3.42	-0.60
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45	0.68	-0.23
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	0.66	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.53	0.63	-0.10

Drawdowns

GEM vs. XCEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GEM drawdown since its inception was -37.02%, smaller than the maximum XCEM drawdown of -41.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GEM and XCEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GEM	XCEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-37.02%	-41.24%	+4.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.50%	-14.46%	+0.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.54%	-18.92%	+2.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.43%	-29.67%	-5.76%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.02%	-41.24%	+4.22%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.04%	-1.25%	+0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.01%	-8.59%	-3.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.48%	3.57%	-0.09%

Volatility

GEM vs. XCEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) is 8.60%, while Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a volatility of 9.43%. This indicates that GEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XCEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GEM	XCEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.60%	9.43%	-0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.96%	18.72%	-1.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.51%	20.89%	-1.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.70%	17.75%	-0.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.03%	19.72%	-0.69%

GEM vs. XCEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GEM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than XCEM's 0.16% expense ratio.

Dividends

GEM vs. XCEM - Dividend Comparison

GEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.80%, less than XCEM's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GEM Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.80%	2.30%	2.58%	2.97%	2.96%	3.00%	1.63%	3.13%	2.08%	1.81%	1.98%	0.25%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	2.35%	3.25%	2.76%	1.22%	2.42%	1.94%	1.63%	2.11%	2.70%	9.56%	1.24%	2.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GEM and XCEM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, GEM and XCEM 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 XCEM?

XCEM has higher volatility (9.43%) compared to GEM (8.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GEM dropped -37.02% vs XCEM's -41.24%.

Which ETF is better, GEM or XCEM?

On 10-year performance, XCEM leads with 12.99% vs 10.00% for GEM. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, GEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GEM or XCEM?

Over the 10-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 12.99% return vs 10.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GEM or XCEM?

XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for GEM.

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

XCEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 1.80% for GEM.

What is the main difference between GEM and XCEM?

GEM tracks Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity Index, while XCEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Ameriprise Financial. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GEM and 0.16% for XCEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.42 vs 2.82), 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.