PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GMF vs. BKEM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GMF vs. BKEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMF achieves a 13.96% return, which is significantly lower than BKEM's 28.54% return.


GMF

1D
0.29%
1M
4.32%
YTD
13.96%
6M
14.78%
1Y
31.46%
3Y*
19.48%
5Y*
5.49%
10Y*
10.11%

BKEM

1D
-1.31%
1M
5.40%
YTD
28.54%
6M
30.76%
1Y
52.98%
3Y*
23.65%
5Y*
7.09%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GMF vs. BKEM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
GMF
SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF
13.96%21.99%16.55%8.20%-18.99%-1.93%44.84%
BKEM
BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF
28.54%30.55%7.53%8.68%-19.43%-3.91%47.53%

Correlation

The correlation between GMF and BKEM is 0.91, 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

0.91

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

0.94

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

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 27, 2020

0.95

The correlation between GMF and BKEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

GMF vs. BKEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GMF
BKEM

Technology

37.7%
35.9%

Financial Services

11.9%
18.9%

Consumer Cyclical

8.9%
9.7%

Communication Services

5.0%
6.6%

Industrials

4.6%
9.0%

Basic Materials

3.7%
6.4%

Healthcare

2.1%
3.2%

Consumer Defensive

1.7%
2.9%

Energy

1.5%
4.0%

Utilities

0.9%
2.3%

Real Estate

0.6%
1.2%

Technology

GMF
37.7%
BKEM
35.9%

Financial Services

GMF
11.9%
BKEM
18.9%

Consumer Cyclical

GMF
8.9%
BKEM
9.7%

Communication Services

GMF
5.0%
BKEM
6.6%

Industrials

GMF
4.6%
BKEM
9.0%

Basic Materials

GMF
3.7%
BKEM
6.4%

Healthcare

GMF
2.1%
BKEM
3.2%

Consumer Defensive

GMF
1.7%
BKEM
2.9%

Energy

GMF
1.5%
BKEM
4.0%

Utilities

GMF
0.9%
BKEM
2.3%

Real Estate

GMF
0.6%
BKEM
1.2%

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

GMF vs. BKEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMF
GMF Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
GMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
GMF Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
GMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
GMF Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank

BKEM
BKEM Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
BKEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BKEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 8181
Sortino Ratio Rank
BKEM Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
BKEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
BKEM Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
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.

GMF vs. BKEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM). 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.


GMFBKEMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.82

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.86

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.48

-0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.50

4.06

-1.56

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.27

15.58

-6.31

GMF vs. BKEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the BKEM Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMF and BKEM, 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


GMFBKEMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.92

2.73

-0.82

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

0.38

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.53

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.30

0.74

-0.44

Drawdowns

GMF vs. BKEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than BKEM's maximum drawdown of -39.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and BKEM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GMFBKEMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-67.18%

-39.48%

-27.70%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.62%

-13.11%

+0.49%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.43%

-18.38%

-3.05%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.76%

-36.53%

+0.77%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.18%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.01%

-2.25%

+1.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.59%

-15.99%

-0.60%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.40%

3.41%

-0.01%

Volatility

GMF vs. BKEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is 6.11%, while BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) has a volatility of 8.13%. This indicates that GMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BKEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GMFBKEMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.11%

8.13%

-2.02%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.65%

16.82%

-3.17%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.50%

19.52%

-3.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.52%

18.73%

-0.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.19%

19.12%

+0.07%

GMF vs. BKEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than BKEM's 0.11% expense ratio.


Dividends

GMF vs. BKEM - Dividend Comparison

GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, less than BKEM's 1.47% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BKEM
BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF
1.47%2.25%2.76%3.02%3.15%2.22%1.78%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
GMF
SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF
1.31%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


With a correlation of 0.91, GMF and BKEM 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.

BKEM has higher volatility (8.13%) compared to GMF (6.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs BKEM's -39.48%.

On 5-year performance, BKEM leads with 7.09% vs 5.49% for GMF. On fees, BKEM is cheaper at 0.11% per year. On volatility, GMF has been the lower-risk option at 6.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, BKEM has performed better with a 7.09% return vs 5.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BKEM is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for GMF.

BKEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 1.31% for GMF.

GMF tracks S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while BKEM tracks Morningstar Emerging Markets Large Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and BNY Mellon. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GMF and 0.11% for BKEM.

BKEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 1.92), 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 GMF and BKEM

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