PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MGEMX vs. GLLSX
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MGEMX vs. GLLSX - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MGEMX achieves a 37.04% return, which is significantly lower than GLLSX's 46.58% return. Over the past 10 years, MGEMX has underperformed GLLSX with an annualized return of 4.24%, while GLLSX has yielded a comparatively higher 15.05% annualized return.


MGEMX

1D
1.37%
1M
13.44%
YTD
37.04%
6M
-30.29%
1Y
-17.28%
3Y*
1.60%
5Y*
-4.78%
10Y*
4.24%

GLLSX

1D
0.17%
1M
11.34%
YTD
46.58%
6M
50.65%
1Y
88.61%
3Y*
29.36%
5Y*
18.30%
10Y*
15.05%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

MGEMX vs. GLLSX - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
MGEMX
Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc. Emerging Markets Portfolio
37.04%-34.08%8.07%12.16%-25.07%3.53%14.59%37.21%-17.34%34.98%
GLLSX
abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund
46.58%34.81%0.73%21.35%-23.04%36.50%15.93%23.64%-11.50%23.06%

Correlation

The correlation between MGEMX 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

0.89

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.89

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.85

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 6, 2012

0.83

The correlation between MGEMX and GLLSX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

MGEMX vs. GLLSX — Risk / Return Rank

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

MGEMX
MGEMX Risk / Return Rank: 22
Overall Rank
MGEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MGEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
Sortino Ratio Rank
MGEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 33
Omega Ratio Rank
MGEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
Calmar Ratio Rank
MGEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 22
Martin Ratio Rank

GLLSX
GLLSX Risk / Return Rank: 9696
Overall Rank
GLLSX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
GLLSX Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
GLLSX Omega Ratio Rank: 9494
Omega Ratio Rank
GLLSX Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
GLLSX Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

MGEMX vs. GLLSX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc. Emerging Markets Portfolio (MGEMX) 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.


MGEMXGLLSXDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-4.46

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-4.72

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.02

1.74

-0.72

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.33

6.17

-6.51

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.59

24.54

-25.12

MGEMX vs. GLLSX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MGEMX Sharpe Ratio is -0.32, which is lower than the GLLSX Sharpe Ratio of 4.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MGEMX 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


MGEMXGLLSXDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.32

4.14

-4.46

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.17

1.02

-1.18

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.17

0.85

-0.68

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

0.69

-0.38

Drawdowns

MGEMX vs. GLLSX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MGEMX drawdown since its inception was -64.93%, which is greater than GLLSX's maximum drawdown of -32.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MGEMX and GLLSX.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MGEMXGLLSXDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.93%

-32.59%

-32.34%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-52.50%

-14.39%

-38.11%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-52.50%

-20.95%

-31.55%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-52.50%

-30.02%

-22.48%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-52.50%

-32.59%

-19.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-31.80%

0.00%

-31.80%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-19.82%

-7.92%

-11.90%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

29.82%

3.61%

+26.21%

Volatility

MGEMX vs. GLLSX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc. Emerging Markets Portfolio (MGEMX) is 8.74%, while abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (GLLSX) has a volatility of 9.95%. This indicates that MGEMX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GLLSX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MGEMXGLLSXDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.74%

9.95%

-1.21%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

73.57%

19.05%

+54.52%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

54.95%

21.43%

+33.52%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

28.98%

18.09%

+10.89%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.72%

17.80%

+6.92%

MGEMX vs. GLLSX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MGEMX has a 1.05% expense ratio, which is lower than GLLSX's 1.23% expense ratio.


Dividends

MGEMX vs. GLLSX - Dividend Comparison

MGEMX has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GLLSX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
MGEMX
Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc. Emerging Markets Portfolio
0.00%0.00%1.27%2.48%4.48%9.05%1.07%26.00%2.46%0.60%0.82%0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.93, MGEMX 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.

GLLSX has higher volatility (9.95%) compared to MGEMX (8.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MGEMX dropped -64.93% vs GLLSX's -32.59%.

GLLSX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.14 vs -0.32), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MGEMX and GLLSX

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