GMF vs. EEMS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GMF (SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF) and EEMS (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GMF is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while EEMS is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GMF returned 10.11%/yr vs 9.25%/yr for EEMS. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GMF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.73%/yr for EEMS.

Performance

GMF vs. EEMS - 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 Small-Cap ETF (EEMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMF achieves a 13.96% return, which is significantly lower than EEMS's 15.19% return. Over the past 10 years, GMF has outperformed EEMS with an annualized return of 10.11%, while EEMS has yielded a comparatively lower 9.25% annualized 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%

EEMS

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -0.06%
• YTD: 15.19%
• 6M: 17.20%
• 1Y: 28.89%
• 3Y*: 17.04%
• 5Y*: 7.03%
• 10Y*: 9.25%

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

GMF vs. EEMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF	13.96%	21.99%	16.55%	8.20%	-18.99%	-1.93%	24.96%	19.92%	-14.25%	41.71%
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	15.19%	19.78%	3.13%	23.09%	-19.12%	18.12%	19.47%	11.25%	-18.98%	34.80%

Correlation

The correlation between GMF and EEMS is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 19, 2011	0.82

The correlation between GMF and EEMS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

GMF vs. EEMS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GMF	EEMS
Technology	37.7%	22.7%
Financial Services	11.9%	11.1%
Consumer Cyclical	8.9%	9.6%
Communication Services	5.0%	2.9%
Industrials	4.6%	18.9%
Basic Materials	3.7%	9.3%
Healthcare	2.1%	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.7%	5.2%
Energy	1.5%	2.4%
Utilities	0.9%	2.7%
Real Estate	0.6%	5.9%

Return for Risk

GMF vs. EEMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMF

GMF Risk / Return Rank: 56
GMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
GMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
GMF Omega Ratio Rank: 57
GMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
GMF Martin Ratio Rank: 55

EEMS

EEMS Risk / Return Rank: 51
EEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
EEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
EEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 50
EEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
EEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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. EEMS - 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 Small-Cap ETF (EEMS). 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.

	GMF	EEMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	1.68	+0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	2.28	+0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.31	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.50	2.67	-0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.27	9.39	-0.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GMF vs. EEMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the EEMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMF and EEMS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GMF	EEMS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.92	1.68	+0.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30	0.44	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	0.52	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.30	0.32	-0.02

Drawdowns

GMF vs. EEMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than EEMS's maximum drawdown of -48.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and EEMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMF	EEMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.18%	-48.89%	-18.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.62%	-10.87%	-1.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.43%	-19.71%	-1.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.76%	-27.07%	-8.69%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.18%	-48.89%	+8.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.01%	-1.93%	+0.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.59%	-10.50%	-6.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.40%	3.08%	+0.32%

Volatility

GMF vs. EEMS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is 6.11%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) has a volatility of 6.80%. This indicates that GMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMF	EEMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.11%	6.80%	-0.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.65%	14.90%	-1.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.50%	17.30%	-0.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.52%	16.06%	+2.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.19%	17.99%	+1.20%

GMF vs. EEMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMS's 0.73% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMF vs. EEMS - Dividend Comparison

GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, less than EEMS's 2.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	2.68%	3.09%	2.60%	2.69%	0.89%	3.56%	2.14%	2.64%	3.06%	2.47%	2.51%	2.33%
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

Can I hold both GMF and EEMS in my portfolio?

GMF and EEMS have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GMF or EEMS?

EEMS has higher volatility (6.80%) compared to GMF (6.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs EEMS's -48.89%.

Which ETF is better, GMF or EEMS?

On 10-year performance, GMF leads with 10.11% vs 9.25% for EEMS. On fees, GMF is cheaper at 0.49% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, GMF or EEMS?

Over the 10-year period, GMF has performed better with a 10.11% return vs 9.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMF or EEMS?

GMF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for EEMS.

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

EEMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.68%, compared with 1.31% for GMF.

What is the main difference between GMF and EEMS?

GMF is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while EEMS is Emerging Markets Diversified. GMF tracks S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while EEMS tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GMF and 0.73% for EEMS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 1.68), 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.