RNEM vs. EMOP

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

RNEM (First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF) and EMOP (AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. RNEM is passively managed, while EMOP is actively managed. Over the past year, RNEM returned 2.60% vs 39.59% for EMOP. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RNEM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for EMOP.

Performance

RNEM vs. EMOP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) and AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RNEM achieves a 0.25% return, which is significantly lower than EMOP's 22.87% return.

RNEM

• 1D: -1.44%
• 1M: -0.16%
• 6M: -1.96%
• YTD: 0.25%
• 1Y: 2.60%
• 3Y*: 6.03%
• 5Y*: 4.79%
• 10Y*: —

EMOP

• 1D: -3.20%
• 1M: -5.10%
• 6M: 15.53%
• YTD: 22.87%
• 1Y: 39.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RNEM vs. EMOP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	0.25%	3.71%
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	22.87%	16.48%

Correlation

The correlation between RNEM and EMOP is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	0.73

The correlation between RNEM and EMOP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

RNEM vs. EMOP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RNEM	EMOP
Financial Services	35.0%	15.4%
Basic Materials	14.2%	2.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	8.5%
Communication Services	8.7%	3.0%
Energy	7.0%	7.9%
Technology	6.4%	45.9%
Consumer Defensive	6.0%	5.0%
Healthcare	4.5%	3.5%
Industrials	3.9%	6.0%
Utilities	3.5%	2.8%
Real Estate	0.8%	2.4%

Return for Risk

RNEM vs. EMOP — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNEM

RNEM Risk / Return Rank: 12
RNEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
RNEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
RNEM Omega Ratio Rank: 11
RNEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
RNEM Martin Ratio Rank: 13

EMOP

EMOP Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMOP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMOP Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
EMOP Omega Ratio Rank: 71
EMOP Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
EMOP Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

RNEM vs. EMOP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) and AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP). 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.

	RNEM	EMOP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.21	1.79	-1.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.39	2.34	-1.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.33	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.24	3.09	-2.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.65	10.96	-10.30

RNEM vs. EMOP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNEM Sharpe Ratio is 0.21, which is lower than the EMOP Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNEM and EMOP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

RNEM vs. EMOP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNEM drawdown since its inception was -38.38%, which is greater than EMOP's maximum drawdown of -12.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNEM and EMOP.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNEM	EMOP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.38%	-12.88%	-25.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.71%	-12.88%	+2.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.09%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.41%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.81%	-8.03%	+2.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.26%	-2.14%	-7.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.99%	3.62%	+0.37%

Volatility

RNEM vs. EMOP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) is 3.75%, while AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) has a volatility of 9.75%. This indicates that RNEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMOP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RNEM	EMOP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.75%	9.75%	-6.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.93%	20.20%	-9.27%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.51%	22.29%	-9.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.48%	21.87%	-7.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.18%	21.87%	-4.69%

RNEM vs. EMOP - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNEM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than EMOP's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNEM vs. EMOP - Dividend Comparison

RNEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.37%, more than EMOP's 1.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	1.20%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	2.37%	2.75%	3.45%	1.63%	2.99%	3.20%	3.01%	2.85%	2.85%	2.28%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNEM and EMOP in my portfolio?

RNEM and EMOP have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RNEM or EMOP?

EMOP has higher volatility (9.75%) compared to RNEM (3.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNEM dropped -38.38% vs EMOP's -12.88%.

Which ETF is better, RNEM or EMOP?

On 1-year performance, EMOP leads with 39.59% vs 2.60% for RNEM. On fees, EMOP is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, RNEM has been the lower-risk option at 3.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RNEM or EMOP?

Over the 1-year period, EMOP has performed better with a 39.59% return vs 2.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNEM or EMOP?

EMOP is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNEM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RNEM or EMOP?

RNEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.37%, compared with 1.20% for EMOP.

What is the main difference between RNEM and EMOP?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and AllianceBernstein. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RNEM and 0.70% for EMOP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMOP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 0.21), 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.