PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
RFEM vs. IEMG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

RFEM vs. IEMG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

RFEM (First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF) and IEMG (iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. RFEM is actively managed, while IEMG is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFEM returned 8.95%/yr vs 8.84%/yr for IEMG. Their correlation of 0.92 means they have usually moved in the same direction. RFEM charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for IEMG.

Performance

RFEM vs. IEMG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF (RFEM) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFEM achieves a 17.85% return, which is significantly higher than IEMG's 16.38% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RFEM having a 8.95% annualized return and IEMG not far behind at 8.84%.

RFEM

1D
1.21%
1M
-1.00%
6M
9.94%
YTD
17.85%
1Y
33.67%
3Y*
21.15%
5Y*
9.66%
10Y*
8.95%
ALL TIME*
9.76%

IEMG

1D
0.73%
1M
-2.79%
6M
7.82%
YTD
16.38%
1Y
32.88%
3Y*
18.00%
5Y*
7.26%
10Y*
8.84%
ALL TIME*
6.11%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

IEMG

iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF
$833.06M$972.69M$1.09B

RFEM

First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF
$175.57K$273.16K$280.47K

RFEM vs. IEMG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFEM
First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF		17.85%27.71%10.85%20.78%-19.05%0.97%8.19%20.33%-18.80%35.73%
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		16.38%32.56%6.50%11.52%-19.98%-0.64%17.87%17.81%-14.92%37.38%

Correlation

The correlation between RFEM and IEMG is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.94

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.94

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.92

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.93

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 15, 2016

0.92

The correlation between RFEM and IEMG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFEM vs. IEMG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
RFEM
IEMG

Technology

36.5%
43.6%

Financial Services

22.3%
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

10.7%
7.7%

Industrials

8.4%
7.7%

Energy

5.6%
3.0%

Communication Services

5.1%
5.6%

Basic Materials

4.0%
5.8%

Consumer Defensive

2.9%
2.8%

Healthcare

2.4%
3.2%

Utilities

1.3%
1.9%

Real Estate

0.6%
1.5%

Technology

RFEM
36.5%
IEMG
43.6%

Financial Services

RFEM
22.3%
IEMG
17.3%

Consumer Cyclical

RFEM
10.7%
IEMG
7.7%

Industrials

RFEM
8.4%
IEMG
7.7%

Energy

RFEM
5.6%
IEMG
3.0%

Communication Services

RFEM
5.1%
IEMG
5.6%

Basic Materials

RFEM
4.0%
IEMG
5.8%

Consumer Defensive

RFEM
2.9%
IEMG
2.8%

Healthcare

RFEM
2.4%
IEMG
3.2%

Utilities

RFEM
1.3%
IEMG
1.9%

Real Estate

RFEM
0.6%
IEMG
1.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF

iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF

Often compared with RFEM:
RFEM vs. FEMRFEM vs. ALTYRFEM vs. NFTYRFEM vs. INDYRFEM vs. AVEMRFEM vs. EEMRFEM vs. EMCR
Often compared with IEMG:
IEMG vs. VWOIEMG vs. EEMIEMG vs. IEFAIEMG vs. EMXCIEMG vs. SCHEIEMG vs. IXUSIEMG vs. SPY

Return for Risk

RFEM vs. IEMG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
RFEM
RFEM Risk / Return Rank: 7676
Overall Rank
RFEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7676
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFEM Omega Ratio Rank: 7575
Omega Ratio Rank
RFEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFEM Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
Martin Ratio Rank
IEMG
IEMG Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
IEMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IEMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
IEMG Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
IEMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
IEMG Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RFEM vs. IEMG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF (RFEM) and iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG). 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.

RFEMIEMGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.75
1.35

+0.39

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.38
1.85

+0.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.26

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.86

2.33

+0.53

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.09

7.16

+2.93

RFEM vs. IEMG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is comparable to the IEMG Sharpe Ratio of 1.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFEM and IEMG, 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

RFEM vs. IEMG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFEM drawdown since its inception was -42.22%, which is greater than IEMG's maximum drawdown of -38.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFEM and IEMG.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RFEMIEMGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.22%

-38.71%

-3.51%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.65%

-13.78%

+2.13%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.81%

-17.21%

+1.40%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-32.47%

-33.61%

+1.14%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.22%

-38.71%

-3.51%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.48%

-9.76%

+5.28%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.85%

-12.89%

+1.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.29%

4.47%

-1.18%

Volatility

RFEM vs. IEMG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF (RFEM) is 6.31%, while iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (IEMG) has a volatility of 8.73%. This indicates that RFEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IEMG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RFEMIEMGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.31%

8.73%

-2.42%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.90%

21.74%

-4.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.07%

23.71%

-4.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.22%

19.27%

-1.05%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.71%

20.32%

-0.61%

RFEM vs. IEMG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFEM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than IEMG's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFEM vs. IEMG - Dividend Comparison

RFEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.69%, more than IEMG's 2.32% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
IEMG
iShares Core MSCI Emerging Markets ETF		2.32%2.75%3.20%2.89%2.71%3.06%1.87%3.15%2.76%2.35%2.28%2.53%
RFEM
First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF		2.69%1.98%3.64%3.28%7.74%3.21%1.22%3.75%2.37%1.62%3.73%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.94, RFEM and IEMG 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.

IEMG has higher volatility (8.73%) compared to RFEM (6.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFEM dropped -42.22% vs IEMG's -38.71%.

On 10-year performance, RFEM leads with 8.95% vs 8.84% for IEMG. On fees, IEMG is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, RFEM has been the lower-risk option at 6.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, RFEM has performed better with a 8.95% return vs 8.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

IEMG is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for RFEM.

RFEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.69%, compared with 2.32% for IEMG.

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RFEM and 0.09% for IEMG.

RFEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 1.35), 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 RFEM and IEMG

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