MFEM vs. QVMS
MFEM (PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and QVMS (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MFEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Market Index, while QVMS is a Multi-factor fund tracking the S&P Small Cap 600. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MFEM returned 23.28%/yr vs 14.97%/yr for QVMS. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MFEM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for QVMS.
Performance
MFEM vs. QVMS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MFEM achieves a 31.49% return, which is significantly higher than QVMS's 15.96% return.
MFEM
- 1D
- -1.14%
- 1M
- 9.48%
- YTD
- 31.49%
- 6M
- 33.22%
- 1Y
- 54.64%
- 3Y*
- 23.28%
- 5Y*
- 8.84%
- 10Y*
- —
QVMS
- 1D
- -0.75%
- 1M
- 2.44%
- YTD
- 15.96%
- 6M
- 14.49%
- 1Y
- 31.77%
- 3Y*
- 14.97%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MFEM vs. QVMS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MFEM PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF | 31.49% | 25.33% | 4.73% | 15.14% | -19.50% | -3.09% |
QVMS Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF | 15.96% | 5.56% | 9.50% | 16.89% | -14.61% | 4.45% |
Correlation
The correlation between MFEM and QVMS is 0.53, 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 | 0.53 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.52 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2021 | 0.57 |
The correlation between MFEM and QVMS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.
MFEM vs. QVMS - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
MFEM
QVMS
Technology
Financial Services
Basic Materials
Industrials
Energy
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Utilities
Consumer Defensive
Healthcare
Real Estate
Technology
MFEM
QVMS
Financial Services
MFEM
QVMS
Basic Materials
MFEM
QVMS
Industrials
MFEM
QVMS
Energy
MFEM
QVMS
Consumer Cyclical
MFEM
QVMS
Communication Services
MFEM
QVMS
Utilities
MFEM
QVMS
Consumer Defensive
MFEM
QVMS
Healthcare
MFEM
QVMS
Real Estate
MFEM
QVMS
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
MFEM vs. QVMS — Risk / Return Rank
MFEM
QVMS
MFEM vs. QVMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) and Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVMS). 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.
| MFEM | QVMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.87 | 1.82 | +1.06 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.71 | 2.67 | +1.04 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.53 | 1.31 | +0.21 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.27 | 3.63 | +0.64 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 15.72 | 12.26 | +3.46 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| MFEM | QVMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.87 | 1.82 | +1.06 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.54 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.44 | 0.33 | +0.11 |
Drawdowns
MFEM vs. QVMS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MFEM drawdown since its inception was -43.32%, which is greater than QVMS's maximum drawdown of -28.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFEM and QVMS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MFEM | QVMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -43.32% | -28.05% | -15.27% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.86% | -8.78% | -4.08% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.22% | -28.05% | +8.83% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -31.39% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.14% | -0.75% | -0.39% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.49% | -9.10% | -2.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.49% | 2.60% | +0.89% |
Volatility
MFEM vs. QVMS - Volatility Comparison
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) has a higher volatility of 8.47% compared to Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVMS) at 4.76%. This indicates that MFEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QVMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MFEM | QVMS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.47% | 4.76% | +3.71% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.92% | 12.05% | +4.87% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.11% | 17.62% | +1.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.60% | 21.25% | -4.65% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.40% | 21.25% | -1.85% |
MFEM vs. QVMS - Expense Ratio Comparison
MFEM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than QVMS's 0.15% expense ratio.
Dividends
MFEM vs. QVMS - Dividend Comparison
MFEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.12%, more than QVMS's 1.13% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MFEM PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF | 2.12% | 2.77% | 5.89% | 4.01% | 7.01% | 29.96% | 1.70% | 2.37% | 1.18% | 0.21% |
QVMS Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF | 1.13% | 1.10% | 1.53% | 1.51% | 1.58% | 0.64% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MFEM and QVMS have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MFEM has higher volatility (8.47%) compared to QVMS (4.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFEM dropped -43.32% vs QVMS's -28.05%.
On 3-year performance, MFEM leads with 23.28% vs 14.97% for QVMS. On fees, QVMS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, QVMS has been the lower-risk option at 4.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, MFEM has performed better with a 23.28% return vs 14.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
QVMS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for MFEM.
MFEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.12%, compared with 1.13% for QVMS.
MFEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while QVMS is Multi-factor. MFEM tracks RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Market Index, while QVMS tracks S&P Small Cap 600. They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MFEM and 0.15% for QVMS.
MFEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.87 vs 1.82), 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.
Find the right allocation for MFEM and QVMS
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