GMF vs. MKOR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GMF (SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF) and MKOR (Matthews Korea Active ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. GMF is passively managed, while MKOR is actively managed. Over the past year, GMF returned 31.46% vs 173.39% for MKOR. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GMF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for MKOR.

Performance

GMF vs. MKOR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and Matthews Korea Active ETF (MKOR). 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 MKOR's 93.84% 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%

MKOR

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 10.38%
• YTD: 93.84%
• 6M: 106.44%
• 1Y: 173.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GMF vs. MKOR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF	13.96%	21.99%	16.55%	0.52%
MKOR Matthews Korea Active ETF	93.84%	70.33%	-15.76%	-2.16%

Correlation

The correlation between GMF and MKOR is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 18, 2023	0.64

The correlation between GMF and MKOR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

GMF vs. MKOR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GMF	MKOR
Technology	37.7%	56.1%
Financial Services	11.9%	8.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.9%	7.0%
Communication Services	5.0%	2.1%
Industrials	4.6%	15.0%
Basic Materials	3.7%	0.8%
Healthcare	2.1%	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	1.7%	1.7%
Energy	1.5%	0.6%
Utilities	0.9%	0.6%
Real Estate	0.6%	-

Return for Risk

GMF vs. MKOR — 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

MKOR

MKOR Risk / Return Rank: 95
MKOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
MKOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
MKOR Omega Ratio Rank: 94
MKOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
MKOR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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. MKOR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and Matthews Korea Active ETF (MKOR). 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	MKOR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	4.71	-2.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	4.71	-1.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.66	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.50	8.46	-5.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.27	32.58	-23.31
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. MKOR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is lower than the MKOR Sharpe Ratio of 4.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMF and MKOR, 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	MKOR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.92	4.71	-2.79
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30	—	—
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	1.54	-1.24

Drawdowns

GMF vs. MKOR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than MKOR's maximum drawdown of -22.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and MKOR.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMF	MKOR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.18%	-22.09%	-45.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.62%	-20.62%	+8.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.43%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.01%	-3.77%	+2.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.59%	-6.22%	-10.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.40%	5.34%	-1.94%

Volatility

GMF vs. MKOR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) is 6.11%, while Matthews Korea Active ETF (MKOR) has a volatility of 17.64%. This indicates that GMF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MKOR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMF	MKOR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.11%	17.64%	-11.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.65%	33.35%	-19.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.50%	37.21%	-20.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.52%	27.05%	-8.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.19%	27.05%	-7.86%

GMF vs. MKOR - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than MKOR's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMF vs. MKOR - Dividend Comparison

GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, less than MKOR's 1.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
MKOR Matthews Korea Active ETF	1.35%	2.62%	5.28%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMF and MKOR in my portfolio?

GMF and MKOR have a correlation of 0.67, 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 MKOR?

MKOR has higher volatility (17.64%) compared to GMF (6.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs MKOR's -22.09%.

Which ETF is better, GMF or MKOR?

On 1-year performance, MKOR leads with 173.39% vs 31.46% for GMF. 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 MKOR?

Over the 1-year period, MKOR has performed better with a 173.39% return vs 31.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMF or MKOR?

GMF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MKOR.

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

MKOR has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 1.31% for GMF.

What is the main difference between GMF and MKOR?

They also come from different issuers: State Street and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GMF and 0.79% for MKOR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MKOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.71 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.