RECS vs. XCEM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RECS (Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF) and XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RECS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index, while XCEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RECS returned 9.89%/yr vs 12.99%/yr for XCEM. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RECS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.16%/yr for XCEM.

Performance

RECS vs. XCEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) 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, RECS achieves a 6.61% return, which is significantly lower than XCEM's 38.32% return. Over the past 10 years, RECS has underperformed XCEM with an annualized return of 9.89%, while XCEM has yielded a comparatively higher 12.99% annualized return.

RECS

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 4.11%
• YTD: 6.61%
• 6M: 6.84%
• 1Y: 25.02%
• 3Y*: 21.66%
• 5Y*: 14.04%
• 10Y*: 9.89%

XCEM

• 1D: -1.25%
• 1M: 12.13%
• YTD: 38.32%
• 6M: 44.13%
• 1Y: 71.14%
• 3Y*: 26.37%
• 5Y*: 11.95%
• 10Y*: 12.99%

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

RECS vs. XCEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	6.61%	19.30%	26.27%	23.19%	-14.39%	32.73%	15.35%	-0.93%	0.00%	0.00%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	38.32%	34.05%	0.42%	19.96%	-17.59%	7.87%	9.47%	19.74%	-11.75%	34.78%

Correlation

The correlation between RECS and XCEM is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 3, 2015	0.51

The correlation between RECS and XCEM shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (all time) to 0.69 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RECS vs. XCEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RECS	XCEM
Technology	33.6%	1.1%
Financial Services	13.2%	7.7%
Communication Services	11.0%	4.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	1.1%
Healthcare	9.9%	0.1%
Industrials	6.7%	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	0.3%
Energy	3.4%	0.2%
Real Estate	2.3%	0.0%
Utilities	2.2%	1.9%
Basic Materials	2.1%	0.7%

Return for Risk

RECS vs. XCEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

RECS

RECS Risk / Return Rank: 62
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 62
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
RECS Martin Ratio Rank: 66

XCEM

XCEM Risk / Return Rank: 90
XCEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
XCEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
XCEM Omega Ratio Rank: 91
XCEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
XCEM Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

RECS vs. XCEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) 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.

	RECS	XCEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	3.42	-1.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.97	4.27	-1.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.61	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.85	4.95	-2.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.27	19.98	-7.72
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RECS vs. XCEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RECS Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is lower than the XCEM Sharpe Ratio of 3.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RECS 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RECS	XCEM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.13	3.42	-1.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86	0.68	+0.18
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.61	0.66	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	0.63	-0.25

Drawdowns

RECS vs. XCEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RECS drawdown since its inception was -34.29%, smaller than the maximum XCEM drawdown of -41.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RECS and XCEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	RECS	XCEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.29%	-41.24%	+6.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.82%	-14.46%	+5.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.60%	-18.92%	+0.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.08%	-29.67%	+7.59%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.29%	-41.24%	+6.95%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.93%	-1.25%	+0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.28%	-8.59%	+7.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.04%	3.57%	-1.53%

Volatility

RECS vs. XCEM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is 2.97%, while Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a volatility of 9.43%. This indicates that RECS 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

	RECS	XCEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.97%	9.43%	-6.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.84%	18.72%	-9.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.78%	20.89%	-9.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.38%	17.75%	-1.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.22%	19.72%	-3.50%

RECS vs. XCEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RECS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than XCEM's 0.16% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

RECS vs. XCEM - Dividend Comparison

RECS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.04%, less than XCEM's 2.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	1.04%	1.11%	1.09%	1.00%	1.41%	20.64%	1.09%	0.49%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	2.35%	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 RECS and XCEM in my portfolio?

RECS and XCEM have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RECS or XCEM?

XCEM has higher volatility (9.43%) compared to RECS (2.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RECS dropped -34.29% vs XCEM's -41.24%.

Which ETF is better, RECS or XCEM?

On 10-year performance, XCEM leads with 12.99% vs 9.89% for RECS. On fees, RECS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, RECS has been the lower-risk option at 2.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RECS or XCEM?

Over the 10-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 12.99% return vs 9.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RECS or XCEM?

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.16% for XCEM.

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

XCEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 1.04% for RECS.

What is the main difference between RECS and XCEM?

RECS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while XCEM is Emerging Markets Equities. RECS tracks Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index, while XCEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for RECS and 0.16% for XCEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.42 vs 2.13), 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.