NJNK vs. XCEM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

NJNK (Columbia U.S. High Yield ETF) and XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NJNK is a High Yield Bonds fund actively managed by Columbia, while XCEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. NJNK is actively managed, while XCEM is passively managed. Over the past year, NJNK returned 5.36% vs 44.82% for XCEM. Their 0.55 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. NJNK charges 0.46%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for XCEM.

Performance

NJNK vs. XCEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia U.S. High Yield ETF (NJNK) and Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NJNK achieves a 1.60% return, which is significantly lower than XCEM's 23.54% return.

NJNK

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: -0.45%
• 6M: 1.51%
• YTD: 1.60%
• 1Y: 5.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.96%

XCEM

• 1D: 0.85%
• 1M: -6.40%
• 6M: 13.73%
• YTD: 23.54%
• 1Y: 44.82%
• 3Y*: 20.20%
• 5Y*: 10.30%
• 10Y*: 10.60%
• ALL TIME*: 11.31%

*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)
NJNK Columbia U.S. High Yield ETF	$34.41K	$52.42K	$194.41K
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	$6.73M	$7.60M	$9.71M

NJNK vs. XCEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NJNK Columbia U.S. High Yield ETF	1.60%	9.03%	0.77%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	23.54%	34.05%	-5.00%

Correlation

The correlation between NJNK and XCEM is 0.57, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.55

The correlation between NJNK and XCEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NJNK vs. XCEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

NJNK

NJNK Risk / Return Rank: 59
NJNK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
NJNK Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
NJNK Omega Ratio Rank: 56
NJNK Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
NJNK Martin Ratio Rank: 67

XCEM

XCEM Risk / Return Rank: 71
XCEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
XCEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
XCEM Omega Ratio Rank: 76
XCEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
XCEM Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

NJNK vs. XCEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia U.S. High Yield ETF (NJNK) and Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM). 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.

	NJNK	XCEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	1.67	-0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	2.20	-0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.31	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.03	2.42	-0.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.24	8.62	-0.39

NJNK vs. XCEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NJNK Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is comparable to the XCEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NJNK and XCEM, 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

NJNK vs. XCEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NJNK drawdown since its inception was -4.48%, smaller than the maximum XCEM drawdown of -41.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NJNK and XCEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	NJNK	XCEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.48%	-41.24%	+36.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.63%	-18.20%	+15.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.92%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.57%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.24%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.52%	-13.77%	+13.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.48%	-8.58%	+8.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.65%	5.09%	-4.44%

Volatility

NJNK vs. XCEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia U.S. High Yield ETF (NJNK) is 0.87%, while Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a volatility of 10.10%. This indicates that NJNK experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XCEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NJNK	XCEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.87%	10.10%	-9.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.16%	24.69%	-21.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.02%	26.35%	-22.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.68%	19.10%	-14.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.68%	20.11%	-15.43%

NJNK vs. XCEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

NJNK has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is higher than XCEM's 0.16% expense ratio.

Dividends

NJNK vs. XCEM - Dividend Comparison

NJNK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.41%, more than XCEM's 2.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NJNK Columbia U.S. High Yield ETF	5.85%	6.34%	2.05%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	2.63%	3.25%	2.76%	1.22%	2.42%	1.94%	1.63%	2.11%	2.70%	9.56%	1.24%	2.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NJNK and XCEM in my portfolio?

NJNK and XCEM have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NJNK or XCEM?

XCEM has higher volatility (10.10%) compared to NJNK (0.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NJNK dropped -4.48% vs XCEM's -41.24%.

Which ETF is better, NJNK or XCEM?

On 1-year performance, XCEM leads with 44.82% vs 5.36% for NJNK. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, NJNK has been the lower-risk option at 0.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NJNK or XCEM?

Over the 1-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 44.82% return vs 5.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NJNK or XCEM?

XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.46% for NJNK.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NJNK or XCEM?

NJNK has the higher dividend yield at 5.85%, compared with 2.63% for XCEM.

What is the main difference between NJNK and XCEM?

NJNK is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while XCEM is Emerging Markets Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for NJNK and 0.16% for XCEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.33), 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.