KEMX vs. EMEQ

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

KEMX (KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF) and EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. KEMX is passively managed, while EMEQ is actively managed. Over the past year, KEMX returned 56.00% vs 113.64% for EMEQ. Their correlation of 0.87 means they have usually moved in the same direction. KEMX charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for EMEQ.

Performance

KEMX vs. EMEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KEMX achieves a 30.22% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 55.77% return.

KEMX

• 1D: 0.80%
• 1M: -4.08%
• 6M: 16.35%
• YTD: 30.22%
• 1Y: 56.00%
• 3Y*: 25.12%
• 5Y*: 12.08%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.50%

EMEQ

• 1D: 1.31%
• 1M: -7.03%
• 6M: 33.20%
• YTD: 55.77%
• 1Y: 113.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 65.83%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$8.80M	$8.80M	$11.41M
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	$527.87K	$528.96K	$586.53K

KEMX vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	30.22%	38.28%	-5.34%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	55.77%	69.78%	-0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between KEMX and EMEQ is 0.90, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.87

The correlation between KEMX and EMEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

KEMX vs. EMEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KEMX	EMEQ
Technology	46.4%	58.0%
Financial Services	20.3%	11.6%
Industrials	7.5%	6.2%
Basic Materials	7.3%	1.6%
Consumer Cyclical	4.9%	6.2%
Energy	3.6%	7.2%
Communication Services	3.0%	5.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	2.7%
Utilities	1.6%	0.9%
Healthcare	1.5%	1.0%
Real Estate	1.1%	-

Return for Risk

KEMX vs. EMEQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

KEMX

KEMX Risk / Return Rank: 83
KEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
KEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
KEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 83
KEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
KEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 80

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 92
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 91
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 91

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

KEMX vs. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). 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.

	KEMX	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.83	-0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.64	3.10	-0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.44	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.49	4.35	-0.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.97	15.65	-4.68

KEMX vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KEMX Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KEMX and EMEQ, 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

KEMX vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KEMX drawdown since its inception was -38.80%, which is greater than EMEQ's maximum drawdown of -26.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KEMX and EMEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	KEMX	EMEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.80%	-26.25%	-12.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.11%	-26.25%	+10.14%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.62%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.85%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.37%	-19.83%	+8.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.82%	-4.70%	-4.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.12%	7.29%	-2.17%

Volatility

KEMX vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX) is 9.60%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 14.69%. This indicates that KEMX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KEMX	EMEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.60%	14.69%	-5.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.90%	37.55%	-12.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.99%	40.45%	-13.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.41%	34.13%	-14.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.51%	34.13%	-12.62%

KEMX vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

KEMX has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

KEMX vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

KEMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.52%, more than EMEQ's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.77%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	2.52%	3.28%	3.39%	2.00%	4.10%	4.79%	1.69%	2.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KEMX and EMEQ in my portfolio?

KEMX and EMEQ have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KEMX or EMEQ?

EMEQ has higher volatility (14.69%) compared to KEMX (9.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KEMX dropped -38.80% vs EMEQ's -26.25%.

Which ETF is better, KEMX or EMEQ?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 113.64% vs 56.00% for KEMX. On fees, KEMX is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, KEMX has been the lower-risk option at 9.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KEMX or EMEQ?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 113.64% return vs 56.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KEMX or EMEQ?

KEMX is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, KEMX or EMEQ?

KEMX has the higher dividend yield at 2.52%, compared with 1.77% for EMEQ.

What is the main difference between KEMX and EMEQ?

They also come from different issuers: CICC and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for KEMX and 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 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.