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

Performance

GMF vs. EWM - 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 Malaysia ETF (EWM). 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 higher than EWM's 3.07% return. Over the past 10 years, GMF has outperformed EWM with an annualized return of 10.11%, while EWM has yielded a comparatively lower 2.48% 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%

EWM

1D
0.61%
1M
-5.59%
YTD
3.07%
6M
7.75%
1Y
21.22%
3Y*
14.94%
5Y*
4.65%
10Y*
2.48%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GMF vs. EWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
EWM
iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF
3.07%15.74%19.46%-3.61%-6.00%-7.40%3.12%-1.41%-6.28%24.25%

Correlation

The correlation between GMF and EWM is 0.56, 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

0.56

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

0.52

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

0.51

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.59

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 2007

0.68

The correlation between GMF and EWM shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (5 years) to 0.68 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GMF vs. EWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GMF
EWM

Technology

37.7%

-

Financial Services

11.9%
46.6%

Consumer Cyclical

8.9%
1.1%

Communication Services

5.0%
6.6%

Industrials

4.6%
11.1%

Basic Materials

3.7%
8.9%

Healthcare

2.1%
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

1.7%
7.3%

Energy

1.5%
3.9%

Utilities

0.9%
10.8%

Real Estate

0.6%

-

Technology

GMF
37.7%
EWM

-

Financial Services

GMF
11.9%
EWM
46.6%

Consumer Cyclical

GMF
8.9%
EWM
1.1%

Communication Services

GMF
5.0%
EWM
6.6%

Industrials

GMF
4.6%
EWM
11.1%

Basic Materials

GMF
3.7%
EWM
8.9%

Healthcare

GMF
2.1%
EWM
3.8%

Consumer Defensive

GMF
1.7%
EWM
7.3%

Energy

GMF
1.5%
EWM
3.9%

Utilities

GMF
0.9%
EWM
10.8%

Real Estate

GMF
0.6%
EWM

-

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. EWM — 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

EWM
EWM Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
EWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
EWM Omega Ratio Rank: 4343
Omega Ratio Rank
EWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
EWM Martin Ratio Rank: 5050
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. EWM - 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 Malaysia ETF (EWM). 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.


GMFEWMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.39

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.59

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.27

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.50

2.71

-0.21

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.27

8.28

+0.99

GMF vs. EWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the EWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMF and EWM, 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


GMFEWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.92

1.52

+0.39

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

0.34

-0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.53

0.15

+0.38

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.30

0.07

+0.23

Drawdowns

GMF vs. EWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, smaller than the maximum EWM drawdown of -89.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and EWM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GMFEWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-67.18%

-89.19%

+22.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.62%

-7.86%

-4.76%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.43%

-21.31%

-0.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.76%

-22.76%

-13.00%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-40.18%

-43.81%

+3.63%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.01%

-8.91%

+7.90%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-16.59%

-31.82%

+15.23%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.40%

2.57%

+0.83%

Volatility

GMF vs. EWM - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) has a higher volatility of 6.11% compared to iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) at 4.01%. This indicates that GMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GMFEWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.11%

4.01%

+2.10%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.65%

10.87%

+2.78%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.50%

13.99%

+2.51%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.52%

13.70%

+4.82%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.19%

16.29%

+2.90%

GMF vs. EWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GMF and EWM have an expense ratio of 0.49%.


Dividends

GMF vs. EWM - Dividend Comparison

GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, less than EWM's 3.31% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EWM
iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF
3.31%3.41%3.32%3.47%3.00%6.48%1.89%2.91%3.84%5.58%5.97%37.54%
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


GMF and EWM have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

GMF has higher volatility (6.11%) compared to EWM (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs EWM's -89.19%.

On 10-year performance, GMF leads with 10.11% vs 2.48% for EWM. Both ETFs have the same 0.49% expense ratio. On volatility, EWM has been the lower-risk option at 4.01%. 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 10.11% return vs 2.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

GMF and EWM have the same expense ratio: 0.49% per year.

EWM has the higher dividend yield at 3.31%, compared with 1.31% for GMF.

GMF tracks S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while EWM tracks MSCI Malaysia Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares.

GMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.92 vs 1.52), 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 EWM

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