JEMA vs. QAT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

JEMA (JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and QAT (iShares MSCI Qatar ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. JEMA is actively managed, while QAT is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, JEMA returned 6.79%/yr vs 3.56%/yr for QAT. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. JEMA charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for QAT.

Performance

JEMA vs. QAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (JEMA) and iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JEMA achieves a 27.73% return, which is significantly higher than QAT's 1.01% return.

JEMA

• 1D: -5.53%
• 1M: 3.01%
• YTD: 27.73%
• 6M: 28.60%
• 1Y: 54.31%
• 3Y*: 23.52%
• 5Y*: 6.79%
• 10Y*: —

QAT

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: 2.08%
• YTD: 1.01%
• 6M: 0.41%
• 1Y: 7.11%
• 3Y*: 5.84%
• 5Y*: 3.56%
• 10Y*: 4.43%

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

JEMA vs. QAT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
JEMA JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	27.73%	34.89%	5.68%	9.82%	-24.98%	-4.72%
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	1.01%	8.81%	5.20%	2.72%	-7.23%	14.74%

Correlation

The correlation between JEMA and QAT is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 11, 2021	0.34

JEMA vs. QAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JEMA	QAT
Technology	46.7%	1.0%
Financial Services	19.2%	55.5%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	0.7%
Industrials	7.3%	8.4%
Communication Services	6.3%	6.3%
Basic Materials	3.4%	12.6%
Energy	3.3%	7.6%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	0.6%
Healthcare	1.4%	0.8%
Utilities	1.2%	2.5%
Real Estate	0.7%	4.0%

Return for Risk

JEMA vs. QAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

JEMA

JEMA Risk / Return Rank: 80
JEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
JEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
JEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 81
JEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
JEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 84

QAT

QAT Risk / Return Rank: 17
QAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
QAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
QAT Omega Ratio Rank: 17
QAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
QAT Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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.

JEMA vs. QAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (JEMA) and iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT). 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.

	JEMA	QAT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.38	0.54	+1.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.95	0.87	+2.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.11	+0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.16	0.67	+3.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.18	1.24	+14.94

JEMA vs. QAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JEMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is higher than the QAT Sharpe Ratio of 0.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JEMA and QAT, 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

JEMA vs. QAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JEMA drawdown since its inception was -39.50%, smaller than the maximum QAT drawdown of -45.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JEMA and QAT.

Drawdown Indicators

	JEMA	QAT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.50%	-45.21%	+5.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.11%	-10.60%	-2.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.11%	-17.41%	-0.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.39%	-33.17%	-6.22%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.53%	-11.55%	+6.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.90%	-19.14%	+2.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.37%	5.75%	-2.38%

Volatility

JEMA vs. QAT - Volatility Comparison

JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (JEMA) has a higher volatility of 12.49% compared to iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) at 5.72%. This indicates that JEMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JEMA	QAT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.49%	5.72%	+6.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.77%	11.06%	+9.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.96%	13.25%	+9.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.65%	15.06%	+4.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.43%	17.54%	+1.89%

JEMA vs. QAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

JEMA has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than QAT's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

JEMA vs. QAT - Dividend Comparison

JEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.29%, less than QAT's 4.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
JEMA JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	2.29%	2.93%	2.44%	2.95%	2.69%	1.54%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QAT iShares MSCI Qatar ETF	4.63%	3.51%	5.90%	3.92%	4.78%	2.33%	2.63%	3.57%	4.63%	4.10%	3.51%	4.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JEMA and QAT in my portfolio?

JEMA and QAT have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JEMA or QAT?

JEMA has higher volatility (12.49%) compared to QAT (5.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JEMA dropped -39.50% vs QAT's -45.21%.

Which ETF is better, JEMA or QAT?

On 5-year performance, JEMA leads with 6.79% vs 3.56% for QAT. On fees, JEMA is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 5.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JEMA or QAT?

Over the 5-year period, JEMA has performed better with a 6.79% return vs 3.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JEMA or QAT?

JEMA is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for QAT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JEMA or QAT?

QAT has the higher dividend yield at 4.63%, compared with 2.29% for JEMA.

What is the main difference between JEMA and QAT?

They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for JEMA and 0.59% for QAT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 0.54), 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.