PEMX vs. EMC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PEMX (Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF) and EMC (Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, PEMX returned 34.73%/yr vs 17.56%/yr for EMC. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PEMX charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for EMC.

Performance

PEMX vs. EMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF (PEMX) and Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PEMX achieves a 40.36% return, which is significantly higher than EMC's 25.25% return.

PEMX

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 11.09%
• YTD: 40.36%
• 6M: 45.50%
• 1Y: 75.31%
• 3Y*: 34.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMC

• 1D: -1.64%
• 1M: 9.84%
• YTD: 25.25%
• 6M: 27.29%
• 1Y: 39.53%
• 3Y*: 17.56%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PEMX vs. EMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PEMX Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF	40.36%	34.01%	17.21%	15.13%
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	25.25%	18.91%	3.75%	5.12%

Correlation

The correlation between PEMX and EMC is 0.89, 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	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 19, 2023	0.85

The correlation between PEMX and EMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

PEMX vs. EMC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PEMX	EMC
Technology	45.0%	42.4%
Financial Services	24.4%	22.7%
Industrials	8.6%	4.5%
Communication Services	6.6%	8.1%
Utilities	4.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	4.2%	10.3%
Basic Materials	2.8%	3.5%
Healthcare	1.9%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	2.1%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.4%
Energy	-	3.0%

Return for Risk

PEMX vs. EMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PEMX

PEMX Risk / Return Rank: 90
PEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
PEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 91
PEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
PEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 90

EMC

EMC Risk / Return Rank: 58
EMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
EMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
EMC Omega Ratio Rank: 57
EMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
EMC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

PEMX vs. EMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF (PEMX) and Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC). 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.

	PEMX	EMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.52	1.92	+1.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.30	2.66	+1.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.35	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.24	2.86	+2.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.66	10.54	+10.12
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PEMX vs. EMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PEMX Sharpe Ratio is 3.52, which is higher than the EMC Sharpe Ratio of 1.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PEMX and EMC, 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

	PEMX	EMC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.52	1.92	+1.60
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.99	0.87	+1.12

Drawdowns

PEMX vs. EMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PEMX drawdown since its inception was -14.91%, smaller than the maximum EMC drawdown of -18.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PEMX and EMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PEMX	EMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.91%	-18.38%	+3.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.45%	-13.89%	-0.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.91%	-18.38%	+3.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.63%	-1.64%	+1.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.84%	-4.11%	+1.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.66%	3.76%	-0.10%

Volatility

PEMX vs. EMC - Volatility Comparison

Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF (PEMX) has a higher volatility of 9.67% compared to Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) at 9.03%. This indicates that PEMX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PEMX	EMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.67%	9.03%	+0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.73%	18.24%	+0.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.51%	20.68%	+0.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.18%	18.55%	-0.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.18%	18.55%	-0.37%

PEMX vs. EMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PEMX has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than EMC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

PEMX vs. EMC - Dividend Comparison

PEMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.99%, more than EMC's 0.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMC Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF	0.63%	0.78%	1.13%	0.89%
PEMX Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF	4.99%	7.00%	5.00%	0.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PEMX and EMC in my portfolio?

PEMX and EMC have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PEMX or EMC?

PEMX has higher volatility (9.67%) compared to EMC (9.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PEMX dropped -14.91% vs EMC's -18.38%.

Which ETF is better, PEMX or EMC?

On 3-year performance, PEMX leads with 34.73% vs 17.56% for EMC. On fees, EMC is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, EMC has been the lower-risk option at 9.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PEMX or EMC?

Over the 3-year period, PEMX has performed better with a 34.73% return vs 17.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PEMX or EMC?

EMC is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PEMX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PEMX or EMC?

PEMX has the higher dividend yield at 4.99%, compared with 0.63% for EMC.

What is the main difference between PEMX and EMC?

They also come from different issuers: Putnam and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for PEMX and 0.75% for EMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PEMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.52 vs 1.92), 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.