GMF vs. EEMA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GMF (SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF) and EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - GMF tracks the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index while EEMA tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GMF returned 9.14%/yr vs 9.33%/yr for EEMA. Their correlation of 0.92 means they have usually moved in the same direction. GMF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EEMA.

Performance

GMF vs. EEMA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMF achieves a 9.90% return, which is significantly lower than EEMA's 18.44% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with GMF having a 9.14% annualized return and EEMA not far ahead at 9.33%.

GMF

• 1D: 0.96%
• 1M: -1.17%
• 6M: 6.20%
• YTD: 9.90%
• 1Y: 20.83%
• 3Y*: 15.74%
• 5Y*: 6.38%
• 10Y*: 9.14%
• ALL TIME*: 7.12%

EEMA

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: -2.07%
• 6M: 10.69%
• YTD: 18.44%
• 1Y: 36.15%
• 3Y*: 19.22%
• 5Y*: 7.24%
• 10Y*: 9.33%
• ALL TIME*: 6.88%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	$19.41M	$13.70M	$20.34M
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF	$1.14M	$1.33M	$1.43M

GMF vs. EEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF	9.90%	21.99%	16.55%	8.20%	-18.99%	-1.93%	24.96%	19.92%	-14.25%	41.71%
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	18.44%	33.27%	10.23%	6.57%	-21.49%	-4.22%	25.17%	18.60%	-15.76%	43.41%

Correlation

The correlation between GMF and EEMA is 0.95 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.95
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2012	0.92

The correlation between GMF and EEMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

GMF vs. EEMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GMF	EEMA
Technology	36.9%	40.7%
Financial Services	13.2%	17.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.2%	9.9%
Communication Services	5.4%	6.6%
Industrials	4.1%	8.4%
Basic Materials	3.9%	4.8%
Healthcare	2.2%	3.9%
Consumer Defensive	1.7%	2.8%
Energy	1.5%	2.7%
Utilities	0.8%	1.7%
Real Estate	0.5%	1.0%

Return for Risk

GMF vs. EEMA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GMF

GMF Risk / Return Rank: 44
GMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
GMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
GMF Omega Ratio Rank: 42
GMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
GMF Martin Ratio Rank: 46

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 63
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 64
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 62

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GMF vs. EEMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends 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.

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	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.07	1.46	-0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.57	1.99	-0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.27	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.59	2.43	-0.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.21	7.50	-2.29

GMF vs. EEMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.07, which is comparable to the EEMA Sharpe Ratio of 1.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMF and EEMA, 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

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMF	EEMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.18%	-44.18%	-23.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.62%	-14.30%	+1.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.43%	-20.23%	-1.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.78%	-38.31%	+4.53%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.18%	-44.18%	+4.00%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.49%	-8.62%	+3.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.49%	-13.88%	-2.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.85%	4.62%	-0.77%

Volatility

GMF vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is 6.53%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a volatility of 7.90%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	GMF	EEMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.53%	7.90%	-1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.09%	21.26%	-5.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.80%	23.81%	-5.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.82%	21.02%	-2.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.28%	21.12%	-1.84%

GMF vs. EEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMA's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMF vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison

GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than EEMA's 1.39% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.39%	1.48%	1.74%	2.02%	1.78%	2.19%	1.15%	1.86%	2.17%	1.74%	1.74%	2.44%
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

Can I hold both GMF and EEMA in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, GMF and EEMA 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, GMF or EEMA?

EEMA has higher volatility (7.90%) compared to GMF (6.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs EEMA's -44.18%.

Which ETF is better, GMF or EEMA?

On 10-year performance, EEMA leads with 9.33% vs 9.14% for GMF. On fees, GMF is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, GMF has been the lower-risk option at 6.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMF or EEMA?

Over the 10-year period, EEMA has performed better with a 9.33% return vs 9.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMF or EEMA?

GMF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EEMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GMF or EEMA?

EEMA has the higher dividend yield at 1.39%, compared with 1.22% for GMF.

What is the main difference between GMF and EEMA?

GMF tracks S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GMF and 0.50% for EEMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.46 vs 1.07), 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.