GMF vs. ASHR
GMF (SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF) and ASHR (Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GMF is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while ASHR is a China Equities fund tracking the CSI 300 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GMF returned 9.15%/yr vs 4.83%/yr for ASHR. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GMF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ASHR.
Performance
GMF vs. ASHR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GMF achieves a 10.08% return, which is significantly higher than ASHR's 5.18% return. Over the past 10 years, GMF has outperformed ASHR with an annualized return of 9.15%, while ASHR has yielded a comparatively lower 4.83% annualized return.
GMF
- 1D
- -1.10%
- 1M
- -2.73%
- 6M
- 5.01%
- YTD
- 10.08%
- 1Y
- 19.69%
- 3Y*
- 16.30%
- 5Y*
- 5.48%
- 10Y*
- 9.15%
ASHR
- 1D
- -2.43%
- 1M
- -3.89%
- 6M
- 1.74%
- YTD
- 5.18%
- 1Y
- 25.85%
- 3Y*
- 10.26%
- 5Y*
- -1.21%
- 10Y*
- 4.83%
GMF vs. ASHR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF | 10.08% | 21.99% | 16.55% | 8.20% | -18.99% | -1.93% | 24.96% | 19.92% | -14.25% | 41.71% |
ASHR Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF | 5.18% | 27.02% | 11.95% | -12.52% | -27.52% | -1.57% | 36.29% | 36.50% | -28.45% | 33.47% |
Correlation
The correlation between GMF and ASHR is 0.67, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.67 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.68 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.70 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2013 | 0.67 |
The correlation between GMF and ASHR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.
GMF vs. ASHR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
GMF
ASHR
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Communication Services
Basic Materials
Healthcare
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
GMF
ASHR
Financial Services
GMF
ASHR
Consumer Cyclical
GMF
ASHR
Industrials
GMF
ASHR
Communication Services
GMF
ASHR
Basic Materials
GMF
ASHR
Healthcare
GMF
ASHR
Energy
GMF
ASHR
Consumer Defensive
GMF
ASHR
Utilities
GMF
ASHR
Real Estate
GMF
ASHR
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
GMF vs. ASHR — Risk / Return Rank
GMF
ASHR
GMF vs. ASHR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR). 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.
| GMF | ASHR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.27 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.20 | 1.24 | -0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.57 | 3.37 | -1.81 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.45 | 8.88 | -3.43 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GMF vs. ASHR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than ASHR's maximum drawdown of -51.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and ASHR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GMF | ASHR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.18% | -51.30% | -15.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.62% | -7.69% | -4.93% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.43% | -33.12% | +11.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -33.78% | -44.10% | +10.32% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.18% | -51.30% | +11.12% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.33% | -19.41% | +14.08% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.51% | -29.06% | +12.55% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.62% | 2.92% | +0.70% |
Volatility
GMF vs. ASHR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is 7.02%, while Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF (ASHR) has a volatility of 9.05%. This indicates that GMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ASHR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GMF | ASHR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.02% | 9.05% | -2.03% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.64% | 14.69% | +0.95% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.29% | 19.27% | -0.98% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.86% | 24.15% | -5.29% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.24% | 24.17% | -4.93% |
GMF vs. ASHR - Expense Ratio Comparison
GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than ASHR's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
GMF vs. ASHR - Dividend Comparison
GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than ASHR's 2.19% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ASHR Xtrackers Harvest CSI 300 China A-Shares ETF | 2.19% | 2.31% | 1.13% | 2.48% | 1.13% | 0.88% | 0.81% | 0.98% | 1.32% | 0.84% | 0.73% | 30.13% |
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF | 1.22% | 1.49% | 1.92% | 2.75% | 2.54% | 2.71% | 1.32% | 1.75% | 2.26% | 1.70% | 2.49% | 3.76% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GMF and ASHR have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ASHR has higher volatility (9.05%) compared to GMF (7.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs ASHR's -51.30%.
On 10-year performance, GMF leads with 9.15% vs 4.83% for ASHR. On fees, GMF is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, GMF has been the lower-risk option at 7.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, GMF has performed better with a 9.15% return vs 4.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GMF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for ASHR.
ASHR has the higher dividend yield at 2.19%, compared with 1.22% for GMF.
GMF is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while ASHR is China Equities. GMF tracks S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while ASHR tracks CSI 300 Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and DWS. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GMF and 0.65% for ASHR.
ASHR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 vs 1.08), 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.
Find the right allocation for GMF and ASHR
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