GLD vs. EMXC

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

GLD (SPDR Gold Shares) and EMXC (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLD is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price PM, while EMXC is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLD returned 17.08%/yr vs 12.14%/yr for EMXC. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLD charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for EMXC.

Performance

GLD vs. EMXC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLD achieves a -2.47% return, which is significantly lower than EMXC's 37.25% return.

GLD

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: -9.52%
• YTD: -2.47%
• 6M: -2.25%
• 1Y: 22.21%
• 3Y*: 28.89%
• 5Y*: 17.08%
• 10Y*: 12.15%

EMXC

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: 2.60%
• YTD: 37.25%
• 6M: 42.23%
• 1Y: 67.80%
• 3Y*: 26.47%
• 5Y*: 12.14%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLD vs. EMXC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GLD SPDR Gold Shares	-2.47%	63.68%	26.66%	12.69%	-0.77%	-4.15%	24.81%	17.86%	-1.94%	3.98%
EMXC iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF	37.25%	35.14%	2.68%	18.96%	-19.56%	8.54%	12.76%	15.80%	-12.96%	7.16%

Correlation

The correlation between GLD and EMXC is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.35
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 26, 2017	0.25

GLD vs. EMXC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLD	EMXC
Basic Materials	100.0%	6.8%
Communication Services	-	3.4%
Consumer Cyclical	-	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	2.9%
Energy	-	4.2%
Financial Services	-	19.6%
Healthcare	-	2.2%
Industrials	-	8.3%
Real Estate	-	1.0%
Technology	-	45.0%
Utilities	-	2.3%

Return for Risk

GLD vs. EMXC — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLD

GLD Risk / Return Rank: 26
GLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
GLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 25
GLD Omega Ratio Rank: 30
GLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
GLD Martin Ratio Rank: 24

EMXC

EMXC Risk / Return Rank: 89
EMXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EMXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
EMXC Omega Ratio Rank: 90
EMXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
EMXC 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.

GLD vs. EMXC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) 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.

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.

	GLD	EMXC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.87	2.74	-1.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.24	3.35	-2.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.50	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.98	4.55	-3.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.81	17.51	-14.70

GLD vs. EMXC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLD Sharpe Ratio is 0.87, which is lower than the EMXC Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLD 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.

Drawdowns

GLD vs. EMXC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLD drawdown since its inception was -45.56%, which is greater than EMXC's maximum drawdown of -42.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLD and EMXC.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLD	EMXC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.56%	-42.81%	-2.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.46%	-14.41%	-10.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.46%	-19.12%	-5.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.46%	-28.91%	+4.45%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.46%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.05%	-4.12%	-17.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.16%	-10.17%	-5.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.49%	3.74%	+4.75%

Volatility

GLD vs. EMXC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) is 7.79%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF (EMXC) has a volatility of 12.83%. This indicates that GLD 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.

Volatility by Period

	GLD	EMXC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.79%	12.83%	-5.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.10%	21.90%	+2.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.37%	23.90%	+3.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.22%	18.00%	+0.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.08%	20.07%	-3.99%

GLD vs. EMXC - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLD has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than EMXC's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLD vs. EMXC - Dividend Comparison

GLD has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EMXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.05%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMXC iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF	2.05%	2.82%	2.69%	1.83%	2.85%	1.78%	1.45%	3.25%	2.63%	0.99%
GLD SPDR Gold Shares	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLD and EMXC in my portfolio?

GLD and EMXC have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLD or EMXC?

EMXC has higher volatility (12.83%) compared to GLD (7.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLD dropped -45.56% vs EMXC's -42.81%.

Which ETF is better, GLD or EMXC?

On 5-year performance, GLD leads with 17.08% vs 12.14% for EMXC. On fees, GLD is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, GLD has been the lower-risk option at 7.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLD or EMXC?

Over the 5-year period, GLD has performed better with a 17.08% return vs 12.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLD or EMXC?

GLD is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for EMXC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GLD or EMXC?

EMXC has the higher dividend yield at 2.05%, compared with 0.00% for GLD.

What is the main difference between GLD and EMXC?

GLD is categorized as Gold, while EMXC is Emerging Markets Equities. GLD tracks LBMA Gold Price PM, while EMXC tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GLD and 0.49% for EMXC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMXC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 0.87), 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.