PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QAT vs. EEMO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QAT vs. EEMO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) and Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QAT achieves a -0.42% return, which is significantly lower than EEMO's 40.25% return. Over the past 10 years, QAT has underperformed EEMO with an annualized return of 4.31%, while EEMO has yielded a comparatively higher 8.88% annualized return.


QAT

1D
-0.37%
1M
-0.79%
YTD
-0.42%
6M
0.19%
1Y
1.83%
3Y*
3.96%
5Y*
3.38%
10Y*
4.31%

EEMO

1D
-1.32%
1M
18.59%
YTD
40.25%
6M
41.33%
1Y
57.41%
3Y*
25.30%
5Y*
7.19%
10Y*
8.88%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QAT vs. EEMO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QAT
iShares MSCI Qatar ETF
-0.42%8.81%5.20%2.72%-7.23%14.42%6.94%-0.44%20.03%-11.66%
EEMO
Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF
40.25%10.99%9.88%13.90%-18.73%-5.57%9.66%21.17%-17.24%49.65%

Correlation

The correlation between QAT and EEMO is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.35

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.34

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

0.35

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

0.32

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2014

0.29

QAT vs. EEMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QAT
EEMO

Financial Services

54.3%
18.0%

Industrials

13.2%
11.5%

Basic Materials

12.7%
12.9%

Communication Services

6.7%
1.5%

Real Estate

3.9%
0.5%

Energy

3.3%
2.5%

Utilities

2.6%
2.0%

Healthcare

0.8%
3.0%

Consumer Cyclical

0.7%
3.2%

Consumer Defensive

0.7%
1.2%

Technology

0.5%
43.8%

Financial Services

QAT
54.3%
EEMO
18.0%

Industrials

QAT
13.2%
EEMO
11.5%

Basic Materials

QAT
12.7%
EEMO
12.9%

Communication Services

QAT
6.7%
EEMO
1.5%

Real Estate

QAT
3.9%
EEMO
0.5%

Energy

QAT
3.3%
EEMO
2.5%

Utilities

QAT
2.6%
EEMO
2.0%

Healthcare

QAT
0.8%
EEMO
3.0%

Consumer Cyclical

QAT
0.7%
EEMO
3.2%

Consumer Defensive

QAT
0.7%
EEMO
1.2%

Technology

QAT
0.5%
EEMO
43.8%

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

QAT vs. EEMO — Risk / Return Rank

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

QAT
QAT Risk / Return Rank: 1010
Overall Rank
QAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1010
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 1010
Sortino Ratio Rank
QAT Omega Ratio Rank: 1010
Omega Ratio Rank
QAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 1111
Calmar Ratio Rank
QAT Martin Ratio Rank: 1010
Martin Ratio Rank

EEMO
EEMO Risk / Return Rank: 7575
Overall Rank
EEMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMO Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7777
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMO Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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.

QAT vs. EEMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) and Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO). 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.


QATEEMODifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.14

2.36

-2.22

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.28

3.28

-3.00

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.46

-0.43

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.17

3.91

-3.74

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

0.33

15.67

-15.34

QAT vs. EEMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QAT Sharpe Ratio is 0.14, which is lower than the EEMO Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QAT and EEMO, 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


QATEEMODifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.14

2.36

-2.22

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.23

0.37

-0.15

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.25

0.41

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.07

0.13

-0.06

Drawdowns

QAT vs. EEMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QAT drawdown since its inception was -45.21%, smaller than the maximum EEMO drawdown of -48.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QAT and EEMO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QATEEMODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.21%

-48.47%

+3.26%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.60%

-14.75%

+4.15%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.41%

-26.06%

+8.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.17%

-34.03%

+0.86%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.04%

-46.57%

+12.53%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-12.80%

-1.32%

-11.48%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-19.18%

-20.17%

+0.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.54%

3.67%

+1.87%

Volatility

QAT vs. EEMO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) is 5.03%, while Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF (EEMO) has a volatility of 14.32%. This indicates that QAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QATEEMODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.03%

14.32%

-9.29%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.46%

22.10%

-11.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.36%

24.45%

-11.09%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.00%

19.33%

-4.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.56%

21.59%

-4.03%

QAT vs. EEMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

QAT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than EEMO's 0.31% expense ratio.


Dividends

QAT vs. EEMO - Dividend Comparison

QAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.52%, more than EEMO's 1.64% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMO
Invesco S&P Emerging Markets Momentum ETF
1.64%2.31%2.57%3.65%3.82%1.51%1.53%2.13%13.10%5.13%1.55%2.92%
QAT
iShares MSCI Qatar ETF
3.52%3.51%5.90%3.92%4.78%2.33%2.63%3.57%4.63%4.10%3.51%4.49%

Frequently Asked Questions


QAT and EEMO have a correlation of 0.35, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EEMO has higher volatility (14.32%) compared to QAT (5.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QAT dropped -45.21% vs EEMO's -48.47%.

On 10-year performance, EEMO leads with 8.88% vs 4.31% for QAT. On fees, EEMO is cheaper at 0.31% per year. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 5.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EEMO has performed better with a 8.88% return vs 4.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EEMO is cheaper with a 0.31% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for QAT.

QAT has the higher dividend yield at 3.52%, compared with 1.64% for EEMO.

QAT is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while EEMO is Momentum. QAT tracks MSCI All Qatar Capped Index, while EEMO tracks S&P Momentum Emerging Plus LargeMidCap Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for QAT and 0.31% for EEMO.

EEMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 0.14), 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 QAT and EEMO

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