MCEMX vs. GLLSX

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MCEMX (Martin Currie Emerging Markets Fund) and GLLSX (abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Over the past 10 years, MCEMX returned 11.09%/yr vs 15.00%/yr for GLLSX. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MCEMX charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.23%/yr for GLLSX.

Performance

MCEMX vs. GLLSX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Martin Currie Emerging Markets Fund (MCEMX) and abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCEMX achieves a 30.87% return, which is significantly lower than GLLSX's 45.96% return. Over the past 10 years, MCEMX has underperformed GLLSX with an annualized return of 11.09%, while GLLSX has yielded a comparatively higher 15.00% annualized return.

MCEMX

• 1D: -0.80%
• 1M: 9.83%
• YTD: 30.87%
• 6M: 35.11%
• 1Y: 62.80%
• 3Y*: 22.47%
• 5Y*: 5.15%
• 10Y*: 11.09%

GLLSX

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: 8.91%
• YTD: 45.96%
• 6M: 50.30%
• 1Y: 85.77%
• 3Y*: 29.18%
• 5Y*: 17.96%
• 10Y*: 15.00%

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

MCEMX vs. GLLSX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MCEMX Martin Currie Emerging Markets Fund	30.87%	36.77%	2.89%	6.28%	-26.82%	-5.00%	27.81%	29.29%	-18.82%	47.10%
GLLSX abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	45.96%	34.81%	0.73%	21.35%	-23.04%	36.50%	15.93%	23.64%	-11.50%	23.06%

Correlation

The correlation between MCEMX and GLLSX is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 2016	0.83

The correlation between MCEMX and GLLSX shifts across timeframes, from 0.83 (10 years) to 0.93 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MCEMX vs. GLLSX — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCEMX

MCEMX Risk / Return Rank: 88
MCEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
MCEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
MCEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 85
MCEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
MCEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 91

GLLSX

GLLSX Risk / Return Rank: 95
GLLSX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
GLLSX Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
GLLSX Omega Ratio Rank: 94
GLLSX Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
GLLSX Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

MCEMX vs. GLLSX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Martin Currie Emerging Markets Fund (MCEMX) and abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX). 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.

	MCEMX	GLLSX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.13	4.12	-0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.88	4.76	-0.88
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.74	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.54	6.14	-1.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.42	24.40	-5.98
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCEMX vs. GLLSX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCEMX Sharpe Ratio is 3.13, which is comparable to the GLLSX Sharpe Ratio of 4.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCEMX and GLLSX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MCEMX	GLLSX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.13	4.12	-0.99
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.26	1.00	-0.74
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.55	0.85	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.57	0.69	-0.12

Drawdowns

MCEMX vs. GLLSX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCEMX drawdown since its inception was -46.45%, which is greater than GLLSX's maximum drawdown of -32.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCEMX and GLLSX.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCEMX	GLLSX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.45%	-32.59%	-13.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.34%	-14.39%	+0.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.19%	-20.95%	+2.76%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-43.05%	-30.02%	-13.03%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.45%	-32.59%	-13.86%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	-0.42%	-0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.12%	-7.92%	-9.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.53%	3.61%	-0.08%

Volatility

MCEMX vs. GLLSX - Volatility Comparison

Martin Currie Emerging Markets Fund (MCEMX) and abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX) have volatilities of 9.50% and 9.87%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	MCEMX	GLLSX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.50%	9.87%	-0.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.06%	19.06%	-1.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.80%	21.44%	-0.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.77%	18.09%	+1.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.12%	17.80%	+2.32%

MCEMX vs. GLLSX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCEMX has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than GLLSX's 1.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCEMX vs. GLLSX - Dividend Comparison

MCEMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than GLLSX's 1.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GLLSX abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	1.28%	1.88%	0.74%	0.77%	29.32%	22.85%	0.00%	3.38%	9.47%	8.40%	1.09%	0.94%
MCEMX Martin Currie Emerging Markets Fund	0.52%	0.68%	0.62%	1.41%	0.70%	0.23%	0.54%	2.54%	1.03%	0.17%	2.04%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCEMX and GLLSX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, MCEMX and GLLSX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, MCEMX or GLLSX?

GLLSX has higher volatility (9.87%) compared to MCEMX (9.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCEMX dropped -46.45% vs GLLSX's -32.59%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLLSX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.12 vs 3.13), 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.