PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QDF vs. EEMV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QDF vs. EEMV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with QDF having a 12.15% return and EEMV slightly lower at 11.64%. Over the past 10 years, QDF has outperformed EEMV with an annualized return of 11.84%, while EEMV has yielded a comparatively lower 5.61% annualized return.


QDF

1D
-0.54%
1M
0.78%
6M
10.01%
YTD
12.15%
1Y
22.84%
3Y*
16.92%
5Y*
11.96%
10Y*
11.84%
ALL TIME*
12.65%

EEMV

1D
-0.08%
1M
-7.54%
6M
8.10%
YTD
11.64%
1Y
15.38%
3Y*
11.47%
5Y*
5.12%
10Y*
5.61%
ALL TIME*
5.18%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QDF vs. EEMV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
QDF
FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund
12.15%16.58%16.95%19.71%-12.13%26.65%4.86%25.71%-7.97%17.42%
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
11.64%13.45%7.98%7.75%-13.94%5.05%6.90%7.83%-5.81%27.28%

Correlation

The correlation between QDF and EEMV is 0.71, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


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

0.71

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

0.62

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

0.62

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

0.63

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2012

0.64

The correlation between QDF and EEMV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

QDF vs. EEMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QDF
EEMV

Technology

37.6%
37.4%

Financial Services

14.6%
18.3%

Industrials

10.2%
5.8%

Healthcare

8.8%
5.5%

Consumer Cyclical

7.0%
6.7%

Communication Services

5.9%
10.0%

Real Estate

5.5%
0.6%

Consumer Defensive

5.5%
5.4%

Basic Materials

1.5%
2.6%

Energy

0.9%
3.5%

Utilities

0.7%
4.2%

Technology

QDF
37.6%
EEMV
37.4%

Financial Services

QDF
14.6%
EEMV
18.3%

Industrials

QDF
10.2%
EEMV
5.8%

Healthcare

QDF
8.8%
EEMV
5.5%

Consumer Cyclical

QDF
7.0%
EEMV
6.7%

Communication Services

QDF
5.9%
EEMV
10.0%

Real Estate

QDF
5.5%
EEMV
0.6%

Consumer Defensive

QDF
5.5%
EEMV
5.4%

Basic Materials

QDF
1.5%
EEMV
2.6%

Energy

QDF
0.9%
EEMV
3.5%

Utilities

QDF
0.7%
EEMV
4.2%

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

QDF vs. EEMV — Risk / Return Rank

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

QDF
QDF Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
QDF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QDF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
QDF Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
QDF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7676
Calmar Ratio Rank
QDF Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank

EEMV
EEMV Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
EEMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMV Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 4343
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMV Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
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.

QDF vs. EEMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV). 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.


QDFEEMVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.93

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.31

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.20

+0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.90

1.67

+1.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.45

5.34

+7.11

QDF vs. EEMV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QDF Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is higher than the EEMV Sharpe Ratio of 0.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QDF and EEMV, 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...

Drawdowns

QDF vs. EEMV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QDF drawdown since its inception was -36.67%, which is greater than EEMV's maximum drawdown of -31.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QDF and EEMV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QDFEEMVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.67%

-31.56%

-5.11%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.90%

-9.22%

+1.32%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.01%

-12.47%

-5.54%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.06%

-21.90%

-0.16%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.67%

-31.56%

-5.11%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.99%

-7.88%

+6.89%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.62%

-7.94%

+4.32%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.84%

2.89%

-1.05%

Volatility

QDF vs. EEMV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund (QDF) is 2.99%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) has a volatility of 6.62%. This indicates that QDF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QDFEEMVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.99%

6.62%

-3.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.58%

14.93%

-5.35%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.09%

15.97%

-3.88%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.63%

12.51%

+3.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.37%

14.00%

+3.37%

QDF vs. EEMV - Expense Ratio Comparison

QDF has a 0.37% expense ratio, which is higher than EEMV's 0.25% expense ratio.


Dividends

QDF vs. EEMV - Dividend Comparison

QDF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.50%, less than EEMV's 2.29% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
2.29%2.65%3.50%2.75%1.93%2.14%2.45%2.63%2.46%2.34%2.79%2.55%
QDF
FlexShares Quality Dividend Index Fund
1.50%1.65%1.93%2.19%2.45%1.90%2.38%3.05%4.29%2.70%3.07%3.04%

Frequently Asked Questions


QDF and EEMV have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EEMV has higher volatility (6.62%) compared to QDF (2.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QDF dropped -36.67% vs EEMV's -31.56%.

On 10-year performance, QDF leads with 11.84% vs 5.61% for EEMV. On fees, EEMV is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, QDF has been the lower-risk option at 2.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, QDF has performed better with a 11.84% return vs 5.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EEMV is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.37% for QDF.

EEMV has the higher dividend yield at 2.29%, compared with 1.50% for QDF.

QDF is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while EEMV is Emerging Markets Equities. QDF tracks Northern Trust Quality Dividend Index, while EEMV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: FlexShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.37% for QDF and 0.25% for EEMV.

QDF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.90 vs 0.97), 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 QDF and EEMV

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