GMF vs. EEMA
Compare and contrast key facts about SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA).
GMF and EEMA are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. GMF is a passively managed fund by State Street that tracks the performance of the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index. It was launched on Mar 19, 2007. EEMA is a passively managed fund by iShares that tracks the performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. It was launched on Feb 8, 2012. Both GMF and EEMA are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: GMF or EEMA.
Correlation
The correlation between GMF and EEMA is 0.64, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.
Performance
GMF vs. EEMA - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
GMF:
0.61
EEMA:
0.47
GMF:
0.98
EEMA:
0.82
GMF:
1.13
EEMA:
1.10
GMF:
0.52
EEMA:
0.34
GMF:
1.64
EEMA:
1.39
GMF:
7.53%
EEMA:
7.33%
GMF:
20.15%
EEMA:
21.92%
GMF:
-67.18%
EEMA:
-44.18%
GMF:
-14.19%
EEMA:
-20.88%
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GMF achieves a -1.76% return, which is significantly lower than EEMA's 1.66% return. Over the past 10 years, GMF has outperformed EEMA with an annualized return of 4.23%, while EEMA has yielded a comparatively lower 2.94% annualized return.
GMF
-1.76%
-3.89%
-5.65%
10.10%
7.04%
4.23%
EEMA
1.66%
-3.92%
-4.69%
7.76%
5.45%
2.94%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
GMF vs. EEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison
GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMA's 0.50% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
GMF vs. EEMA — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank
GMF
EEMA
GMF vs. EEMA - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). 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.
Dividends
GMF vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison
GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, more than EEMA's 1.71% yield.
| TTM | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF | 1.95% | 1.92% | 2.75% | 2.54% | 2.71% | 1.32% | 1.75% | 2.26% | 1.70% | 2.49% | 3.76% | 1.55% |
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF | 1.71% | 1.74% | 2.25% | 1.78% | 2.19% | 1.15% | 1.86% | 2.17% | 1.73% | 1.74% | 2.44% | 1.33% |
Drawdowns
GMF vs. EEMA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than EEMA's maximum drawdown of -44.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and EEMA. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
GMF vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is 11.40%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a volatility of 12.40%. This indicates that GMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.