GMF vs. YCS
GMF (SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF) and YCS (ProShares UltraShort Yen) are both exchange-traded funds - GMF is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while YCS is a Leveraged Currency fund tracking the JPY/USD 4:00 p.m. ET Cross Rate. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GMF returned 9.16%/yr vs 13.35%/yr for YCS. Their 0.11 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. GMF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for YCS.
Performance
GMF vs. YCS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GMF achieves a 12.18% return, which is significantly higher than YCS's 5.40% return. Over the past 10 years, GMF has underperformed YCS with an annualized return of 9.16%, while YCS has yielded a comparatively higher 13.35% annualized return.
GMF
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- -1.27%
- 6M
- 8.72%
- YTD
- 12.18%
- 1Y
- 22.09%
- 3Y*
- 17.18%
- 5Y*
- 6.71%
- 10Y*
- 9.16%
- ALL TIME*
- 7.22%
YCS
- 1D
- -0.02%
- 1M
- -4.94%
- 6M
- 4.42%
- YTD
- 5.40%
- 1Y
- 22.68%
- 3Y*
- 17.44%
- 5Y*
- 22.89%
- 10Y*
- 13.35%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.33%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.68M | $1.62M | $1.54M | |
| $2.59M | $2.15M | $1.60M |
GMF vs. YCS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF | 12.18% | 21.99% | 16.55% | 8.20% | -18.99% | -1.93% | 24.96% | 19.92% | -14.25% | 41.71% |
YCS ProShares UltraShort Yen | 5.40% | 9.04% | 35.41% | 28.70% | 29.09% | 22.38% | -11.18% | 3.37% | -1.49% | -6.57% |
Correlation
The correlation between GMF and YCS is -0.19, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.19 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.14 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | -0.12 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | -0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 25, 2008 | 0.11 |
The correlation between GMF and YCS shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to 0.11 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. YCS — Risk / Return Rank
GMF
YCS
GMF vs. YCS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and ProShares UltraShort Yen (YCS). 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 | YCS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.21 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.27 | -0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.76 | 2.69 | -0.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.72 | 9.73 | -4.01 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GMF vs. YCS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than YCS's maximum drawdown of -49.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and YCS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GMF | YCS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.18% | -49.56% | -17.62% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.62% | -8.48% | -4.14% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.43% | -23.05% | +1.62% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -33.78% | -27.32% | -6.46% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.18% | -27.32% | -12.86% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.53% | -7.34% | +3.81% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.48% | -19.75% | +3.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.87% | 2.34% | +1.53% |
Volatility
GMF vs. YCS - Volatility Comparison
SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and ProShares UltraShort Yen (YCS) have volatilities of 5.84% and 5.95%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GMF | YCS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.84% | 5.95% | -0.11% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.04% | 11.87% | +4.17% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.83% | 16.43% | +2.40% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.84% | 21.21% | -2.37% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.29% | 18.61% | +0.68% |
GMF vs. YCS - Expense Ratio Comparison
GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than YCS's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
GMF vs. YCS - Dividend Comparison
GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, while YCS has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF | 1.20% | 1.49% | 1.92% | 2.75% | 2.54% | 2.71% | 1.32% | 1.75% | 2.26% | 1.70% | 2.49% | 3.76% |
YCS ProShares UltraShort Yen | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GMF and YCS have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
YCS has higher volatility (5.95%) compared to GMF (5.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs YCS's -49.56%.
On 10-year performance, YCS leads with 13.35% vs 9.16% for GMF. On fees, GMF is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, GMF has been the lower-risk option at 5.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, YCS has performed better with a 13.35% return vs 9.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GMF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for YCS.
GMF has the higher dividend yield at 1.20%, compared with 0.00% for YCS.
GMF is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while YCS is Leveraged Currency. GMF tracks S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while YCS tracks JPY/USD 4:00 p.m. ET Cross Rate. They also come from different issuers: State Street and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GMF and 0.95% for YCS.
YCS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.39 vs 1.18), 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.
Find the right allocation for GMF and YCS
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