GXC vs. EEMA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GXC (SPDR S&P China ETF) and EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GXC is a China Equities fund tracking the S&P China BMI Index, while EEMA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GXC returned 5.03%/yr vs 10.73%/yr for EEMA. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GXC charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EEMA.

Performance

GXC vs. EEMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GXC achieves a -8.73% return, which is significantly lower than EEMA's 23.06% return. Over the past 10 years, GXC has underperformed EEMA with an annualized return of 5.03%, while EEMA has yielded a comparatively higher 10.73% annualized return.

GXC

• 1D: -2.39%
• 1M: -5.30%
• YTD: -8.73%
• 6M: -9.84%
• 1Y: 4.52%
• 3Y*: 9.44%
• 5Y*: -5.29%
• 10Y*: 5.03%

EEMA

• 1D: -5.06%
• 1M: 2.38%
• YTD: 23.06%
• 6M: 24.51%
• 1Y: 46.13%
• 3Y*: 23.23%
• 5Y*: 6.59%
• 10Y*: 10.73%

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

GXC vs. EEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF	-8.73%	30.84%	14.60%	-9.93%	-22.12%	-19.70%	28.31%	23.07%	-19.39%	51.66%
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	23.06%	33.27%	10.23%	6.57%	-21.49%	-4.22%	25.17%	18.60%	-15.76%	43.41%

Correlation

The correlation between GXC and EEMA is 0.72, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2012	0.84

The correlation between GXC and EEMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.72 (1 year) to 0.86 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GXC vs. EEMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GXC	EEMA
Consumer Cyclical	21.9%	10.4%
Financial Services	17.1%	15.3%
Communication Services	13.9%	6.6%
Technology	13.8%	43.4%
Industrials	9.5%	8.4%
Basic Materials	6.7%	4.4%
Healthcare	6.3%	3.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	2.6%
Energy	3.3%	2.8%
Real Estate	2.0%	0.9%
Utilities	1.9%	1.7%

Return for Risk

GXC vs. EEMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

GXC

GXC Risk / Return Rank: 11
GXC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
GXC Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
GXC Omega Ratio Rank: 11
GXC Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
GXC Martin Ratio Rank: 11

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 66
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 69
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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.

GXC vs. EEMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). 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.

	GXC	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.24	2.05	-1.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.46	2.66	-2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.38	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.28	3.24	-2.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.66	11.74	-11.08

GXC vs. EEMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GXC Sharpe Ratio is 0.24, which is lower than the EEMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GXC and EEMA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

GXC vs. EEMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GXC drawdown since its inception was -71.96%, which is greater than EEMA's maximum drawdown of -44.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GXC and EEMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	GXC	EEMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-71.96%	-44.18%	-27.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.05%	-14.30%	-1.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.54%	-20.23%	-5.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.99%	-40.46%	-13.53%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-60.23%	-44.18%	-16.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-35.50%	-5.06%	-30.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-28.83%	-13.93%	-14.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.84%	3.94%	+2.90%

Volatility

GXC vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P China ETF (GXC) is 6.01%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a volatility of 11.69%. This indicates that GXC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GXC	EEMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.01%	11.69%	-5.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.12%	20.09%	-5.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.12%	22.62%	-3.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.02%	20.88%	+8.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.06%	21.04%	+5.02%

GXC vs. EEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

GXC has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than EEMA's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

GXC vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison

GXC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.27%, more than EEMA's 1.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.34%	1.48%	1.74%	2.02%	1.78%	2.19%	1.15%	1.86%	2.17%	1.74%	1.74%	2.44%
GXC SPDR S&P China ETF	2.27%	2.40%	2.81%	3.70%	2.67%	1.35%	1.04%	1.60%	2.03%	1.84%	2.05%	2.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GXC and EEMA in my portfolio?

GXC and EEMA have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GXC or EEMA?

EEMA has higher volatility (11.69%) compared to GXC (6.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GXC dropped -71.96% vs EEMA's -44.18%.

Which ETF is better, GXC or EEMA?

On 10-year performance, EEMA leads with 10.73% vs 5.03% for GXC. On fees, EEMA is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, GXC has been the lower-risk option at 6.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GXC or EEMA?

Over the 10-year period, EEMA has performed better with a 10.73% return vs 5.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GXC or EEMA?

EEMA is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for GXC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GXC or EEMA?

GXC has the higher dividend yield at 2.27%, compared with 1.34% for EEMA.

What is the main difference between GXC and EEMA?

GXC is categorized as China Equities, while EEMA is Asia Pacific Equities. GXC tracks S&P China BMI Index, while EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for GXC and 0.50% for EEMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 0.24), 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.