REMG vs. PEMX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

REMG (Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and PEMX (Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, REMG returned 59.26% vs 75.31% for PEMX. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. REMG charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for PEMX.

Performance

REMG vs. PEMX - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, REMG achieves a 29.45% return, which is significantly lower than PEMX's 40.36% return.

REMG

• 1D: -1.25%
• 1M: 9.88%
• YTD: 29.45%
• 6M: 32.57%
• 1Y: 59.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PEMX

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

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

REMG vs. PEMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
REMG Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF	29.45%	24.09%
PEMX Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF	40.36%	25.86%

Correlation

The correlation between REMG and PEMX is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 2, 2025	0.91

The correlation between REMG and PEMX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

REMG vs. PEMX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	REMG	PEMX
Technology	36.6%	45.0%
Financial Services	20.5%	24.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	4.2%
Industrials	7.7%	8.6%
Communication Services	6.3%	6.6%
Basic Materials	6.2%	2.8%
Energy	4.1%	-
Healthcare	2.7%	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	1.2%
Real Estate	1.7%	0.9%
Utilities	1.4%	4.5%

Return for Risk

REMG vs. PEMX — Risk / Return Rank

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

REMG

REMG Risk / Return Rank: 84
REMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
REMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
REMG Omega Ratio Rank: 85
REMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
REMG Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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

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.

REMG vs. PEMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG) and Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF (PEMX). 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.

	REMG	PEMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.88	3.52	-0.64
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.71	4.30	-0.59
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.59	-0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.21	5.24	-1.03
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.07	20.66	-3.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

REMG vs. PEMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current REMG Sharpe Ratio is 2.88, which is comparable to the PEMX Sharpe Ratio of 3.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of REMG and PEMX, 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

	REMG	PEMX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.88	3.52	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.93	1.99	+0.95

Drawdowns

REMG vs. PEMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum REMG drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, smaller than the maximum PEMX drawdown of -14.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for REMG and PEMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	REMG	PEMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.13%	-14.91%	+0.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.13%	-14.45%	+0.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-0.63%	-0.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.94%	-2.84%	+0.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.48%	3.66%	-0.18%

Volatility

REMG vs. PEMX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG) is 8.89%, while Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF (PEMX) has a volatility of 9.67%. This indicates that REMG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PEMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	REMG	PEMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.89%	9.67%	-0.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.92%	18.73%	-0.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.66%	21.51%	-0.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.62%	18.18%	+2.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.62%	18.18%	+2.44%

REMG vs. PEMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

REMG has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is lower than PEMX's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

REMG vs. PEMX - Dividend Comparison

REMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, less than PEMX's 4.99% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
PEMX Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF	4.99%	7.00%	5.00%	0.72%
REMG Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.06%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both REMG and PEMX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, REMG and PEMX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, REMG or PEMX?

PEMX has higher volatility (9.67%) compared to REMG (8.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, REMG dropped -14.13% vs PEMX's -14.91%.

Which ETF is better, REMG or PEMX?

On 1-year performance, PEMX leads with 75.31% vs 59.26% for REMG. On fees, REMG is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, REMG has been the lower-risk option at 8.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, REMG or PEMX?

Over the 1-year period, PEMX has performed better with a 75.31% return vs 59.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, REMG or PEMX?

REMG is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PEMX.

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

PEMX has the higher dividend yield at 4.99%, compared with 1.06% for REMG.

What is the main difference between REMG and PEMX?

They also come from different issuers: Russell and Putnam. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for REMG and 0.85% for PEMX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PEMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.52 vs 2.88), 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.