PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
GMOM vs. EEMO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

GMOM vs. EEMO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cambria Global Momentum ETF (GMOM) and Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMOM achieves a 11.82% return, which is significantly lower than EEMO's 36.85% return. Over the past 10 years, GMOM has underperformed EEMO with an annualized return of 7.62%, while EEMO has yielded a comparatively higher 8.50% annualized return.


GMOM

1D
0.24%
1M
0.47%
YTD
11.82%
6M
13.95%
1Y
29.52%
3Y*
13.91%
5Y*
7.06%
10Y*
7.62%

EEMO

1D
-2.42%
1M
10.83%
YTD
36.85%
6M
37.37%
1Y
51.13%
3Y*
24.00%
5Y*
6.67%
10Y*
8.50%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

GMOM vs. EEMO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
GMOM
Cambria Global Momentum ETF
11.82%20.63%6.75%0.65%-2.82%19.13%2.42%8.24%-9.61%20.67%
EEMO
Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF
36.85%10.99%9.88%13.90%-18.73%-5.57%9.66%21.17%-17.24%49.65%

Correlation

The correlation between GMOM and EEMO 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 (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.59

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

0.54

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

0.51

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2014

0.48

The correlation between GMOM and EEMO shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (all time) to 0.67 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GMOM vs. EEMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
GMOM
EEMO

Energy

20.7%
2.5%

Industrials

16.1%
11.5%

Basic Materials

15.6%
12.9%

Financial Services

12.0%
18.0%

Utilities

11.0%
2.0%

Technology

8.4%
43.8%

Consumer Cyclical

5.4%
3.2%

Communication Services

4.1%
1.5%

Consumer Defensive

3.5%
1.2%

Real Estate

2.2%
0.5%

Healthcare

1.1%
3.0%

Energy

GMOM
20.7%
EEMO
2.5%

Industrials

GMOM
16.1%
EEMO
11.5%

Basic Materials

GMOM
15.6%
EEMO
12.9%

Financial Services

GMOM
12.0%
EEMO
18.0%

Utilities

GMOM
11.0%
EEMO
2.0%

Technology

GMOM
8.4%
EEMO
43.8%

Consumer Cyclical

GMOM
5.4%
EEMO
3.2%

Communication Services

GMOM
4.1%
EEMO
1.5%

Consumer Defensive

GMOM
3.5%
EEMO
1.2%

Real Estate

GMOM
2.2%
EEMO
0.5%

Healthcare

GMOM
1.1%
EEMO
3.0%

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

GMOM vs. EEMO — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMOM
GMOM Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
GMOM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GMOM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
GMOM Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
GMOM Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
GMOM Martin Ratio Rank: 6767
Martin Ratio Rank

EEMO
EEMO Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
EEMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMO Omega Ratio Rank: 7171
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMO Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
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.

GMOM vs. EEMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cambria Global Momentum ETF (GMOM) and Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO). 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.


GMOMEEMODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.08

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.08

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.42

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.10

3.48

-0.38

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.12

13.93

-1.81

GMOM vs. EEMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMOM Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is comparable to the EEMO Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMOM and EEMO, 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


GMOMEEMODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.18

2.09

+0.08

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.49

0.35

+0.15

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.60

0.39

+0.20

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.49

0.13

+0.37

Drawdowns

GMOM vs. EEMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMOM drawdown since its inception was -25.03%, smaller than the maximum EEMO drawdown of -48.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMOM and EEMO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


GMOMEEMODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.03%

-48.47%

+23.44%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.57%

-14.75%

+5.18%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.73%

-26.06%

+12.33%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.16%

-34.03%

+14.87%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-25.03%

-46.57%

+21.54%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.85%

-3.71%

+1.86%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.81%

-20.17%

+12.36%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.44%

3.68%

-1.24%

Volatility

GMOM vs. EEMO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cambria Global Momentum ETF (GMOM) is 3.23%, while Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO) has a volatility of 14.18%. This indicates that GMOM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


GMOMEEMODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.23%

14.18%

-10.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.18%

22.26%

-11.08%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.61%

24.58%

-10.97%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.41%

19.36%

-4.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.82%

21.59%

-8.77%

GMOM vs. EEMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMOM has a 0.96% expense ratio, which is higher than EEMO's 0.31% expense ratio.


Dividends

GMOM vs. EEMO - Dividend Comparison

GMOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.58%, less than EEMO's 1.68% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMO
Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF
1.68%2.31%2.57%3.65%3.82%1.51%1.53%2.13%13.10%5.13%1.55%2.92%
GMOM
Cambria Global Momentum ETF
1.58%3.01%2.16%3.63%2.52%3.42%1.24%2.60%1.90%2.05%1.77%1.88%

Frequently Asked Questions


GMOM and EEMO 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.

EEMO has higher volatility (14.18%) compared to GMOM (3.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMOM dropped -25.03% vs EEMO's -48.47%.

On 10-year performance, EEMO leads with 8.50% vs 7.62% for GMOM. On fees, EEMO is cheaper at 0.31% per year. On volatility, GMOM has been the lower-risk option at 3.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EEMO has performed better with a 8.50% return vs 7.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EEMO is cheaper with a 0.31% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for GMOM.

EEMO has the higher dividend yield at 1.68%, compared with 1.58% for GMOM.

They also come from different issuers: Cambria and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.96% for GMOM and 0.31% for EEMO.

GMOM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 2.09), 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 GMOM and EEMO

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