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

Performance

QAT vs. EMGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) and iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF). 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 -0.05% return, which is significantly lower than EMGF's 31.58% return. Over the past 10 years, QAT has underperformed EMGF with an annualized return of 4.34%, while EMGF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.61% annualized return.


QAT

1D
-1.37%
1M
0.05%
YTD
-0.05%
6M
1.39%
1Y
3.73%
3Y*
4.09%
5Y*
3.48%
10Y*
4.34%

EMGF

1D
0.77%
1M
11.12%
YTD
31.58%
6M
34.22%
1Y
58.13%
3Y*
27.39%
5Y*
10.85%
10Y*
11.61%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QAT vs. EMGF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QAT
iShares MSCI Qatar ETF
-0.05%8.81%5.20%2.72%-7.23%14.42%6.94%-0.44%20.03%-11.66%
EMGF
iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF
31.58%31.41%9.06%10.86%-16.55%6.65%10.27%20.96%-19.71%42.37%

Correlation

The correlation between QAT and EMGF is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.37

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

0.35

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

0.35

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

0.34

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2015

0.33

QAT vs. EMGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QAT
EMGF

Financial Services

54.3%
19.2%

Industrials

13.2%
7.8%

Basic Materials

12.7%
5.8%

Communication Services

6.7%
7.4%

Real Estate

3.9%
1.1%

Energy

3.3%
4.3%

Utilities

2.6%
2.5%

Healthcare

0.8%
2.9%

Consumer Cyclical

0.7%
10.4%

Consumer Defensive

0.7%
3.8%

Technology

0.5%
34.7%

Financial Services

QAT
54.3%
EMGF
19.2%

Industrials

QAT
13.2%
EMGF
7.8%

Basic Materials

QAT
12.7%
EMGF
5.8%

Communication Services

QAT
6.7%
EMGF
7.4%

Real Estate

QAT
3.9%
EMGF
1.1%

Energy

QAT
3.3%
EMGF
4.3%

Utilities

QAT
2.6%
EMGF
2.5%

Healthcare

QAT
0.8%
EMGF
2.9%

Consumer Cyclical

QAT
0.7%
EMGF
10.4%

Consumer Defensive

QAT
0.7%
EMGF
3.8%

Technology

QAT
0.5%
EMGF
34.7%

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. EMGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

QAT
QAT Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
QAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1313
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 1212
Sortino Ratio Rank
QAT Omega Ratio Rank: 1212
Omega Ratio Rank
QAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 1313
Calmar Ratio Rank
QAT Martin Ratio Rank: 1212
Martin Ratio Rank

EMGF
EMGF Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
EMGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMGF Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
EMGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMGF Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
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. EMGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) and iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF). 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.


QATEMGFDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.28

2.93

-2.65

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.48

3.78

-3.30

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.06

1.53

-0.47

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.38

4.32

-3.94

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

0.73

16.71

-15.99

QAT vs. EMGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QAT Sharpe Ratio is 0.28, which is lower than the EMGF Sharpe Ratio of 2.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QAT and EMGF, 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


QATEMGFDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.28

2.93

-2.65

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.23

0.62

-0.38

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.25

0.60

-0.35

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.07

0.57

-0.50

Drawdowns

QAT vs. EMGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QAT drawdown since its inception was -45.21%, which is greater than EMGF's maximum drawdown of -40.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QAT and EMGF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QATEMGFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.21%

-40.23%

-4.98%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.60%

-13.54%

+2.94%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.41%

-17.65%

+0.24%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-33.17%

-28.60%

-4.57%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.04%

-40.23%

+6.19%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-12.48%

0.00%

-12.48%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-19.18%

-10.06%

-9.12%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.52%

3.50%

+2.02%

Volatility

QAT vs. EMGF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Qatar ETF (QAT) is 5.05%, while iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF) has a volatility of 9.04%. This indicates that QAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QATEMGFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.05%

9.04%

-3.99%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.50%

17.45%

-6.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.36%

19.94%

-6.58%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.01%

17.68%

-2.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.56%

19.48%

-1.92%

QAT vs. EMGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

QAT has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than EMGF's 0.45% expense ratio.


Dividends

QAT vs. EMGF - Dividend Comparison

QAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.51%, more than EMGF's 1.91% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMGF
iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF
1.91%2.52%3.42%5.94%4.04%2.48%1.95%2.63%2.73%1.94%2.04%0.00%
QAT
iShares MSCI Qatar ETF
3.51%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 EMGF have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EMGF has higher volatility (9.04%) compared to QAT (5.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QAT dropped -45.21% vs EMGF's -40.23%.

On 10-year performance, EMGF leads with 11.61% vs 4.34% for QAT. On fees, EMGF is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, QAT has been the lower-risk option at 5.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, EMGF has performed better with a 11.61% return vs 4.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EMGF is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for QAT.

QAT has the higher dividend yield at 3.51%, compared with 1.91% for EMGF.

QAT tracks MSCI All Qatar Capped Index, while EMGF tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Diversified Multiple-Factor Index. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for QAT and 0.45% for EMGF.

EMGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.93 vs 0.28), 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 EMGF

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