ROKT vs. EMEQ

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

ROKT (SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF) and EMEQ (Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ROKT is a Industrials Equities fund tracking the S&P Kensho Final Frontiers Index, while EMEQ is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Nomura. ROKT is passively managed, while EMEQ is actively managed. Over the past year, ROKT returned 96.95% vs 141.42% for EMEQ. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ROKT charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.86%/yr for EMEQ.

Performance

ROKT vs. EMEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF (ROKT) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ROKT achieves a 41.13% return, which is significantly lower than EMEQ's 70.13% return.

ROKT

• 1D: -3.50%
• 1M: 2.08%
• YTD: 41.13%
• 6M: 44.16%
• 1Y: 96.95%
• 3Y*: 41.87%
• 5Y*: 23.65%
• 10Y*: —

EMEQ

• 1D: 0.81%
• 1M: 10.20%
• YTD: 70.13%
• 6M: 81.37%
• 1Y: 141.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ROKT vs. EMEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ROKT SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF	41.13%	50.56%	18.61%
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	70.13%	69.78%	-0.73%

Correlation

The correlation between ROKT and EMEQ is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.48

ROKT vs. EMEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ROKT	EMEQ
Industrials	68.4%	0.3%
Technology	20.1%	1.1%
Communication Services	5.8%	2.4%
Energy	5.7%	1.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.3%
Consumer Cyclical	-	6.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.8%
Financial Services	-	6.8%
Healthcare	-	1.4%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	0.9%

Return for Risk

ROKT vs. EMEQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

ROKT

ROKT Risk / Return Rank: 92
ROKT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
ROKT Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
ROKT Omega Ratio Rank: 88
ROKT Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
ROKT Martin Ratio Rank: 95

EMEQ

EMEQ Risk / Return Rank: 95
EMEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
EMEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
EMEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 94
EMEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
EMEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

ROKT vs. EMEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF (ROKT) and Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ). 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.

	ROKT	EMEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.15	3.89	-0.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.74	4.03	-0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.61	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.38	7.71	-1.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	26.23	28.78	-2.55

ROKT vs. EMEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ROKT Sharpe Ratio is 3.15, which is comparable to the EMEQ Sharpe Ratio of 3.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ROKT and EMEQ, 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

ROKT vs. EMEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ROKT drawdown since its inception was -43.16%, which is greater than EMEQ's maximum drawdown of -19.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ROKT and EMEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	ROKT	EMEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.16%	-19.99%	-23.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.27%	-17.91%	+2.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.46%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.46%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.20%	-5.69%	-6.51%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.77%	-4.05%	-2.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.71%	4.79%	-1.08%

Volatility

ROKT vs. EMEQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF (ROKT) is 16.11%, while Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF (EMEQ) has a volatility of 19.34%. This indicates that ROKT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ROKT	EMEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.11%	19.34%	-3.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.24%	32.54%	-5.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.97%	35.48%	-4.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.32%	31.87%	-8.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.42%	31.87%	-6.45%

ROKT vs. EMEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

ROKT has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than EMEQ's 0.86% expense ratio.

Dividends

ROKT vs. EMEQ - Dividend Comparison

ROKT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.28%, less than EMEQ's 1.62% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EMEQ Nomura Focused Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.62%	2.76%	0.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ROKT SPDR S&P Kensho Final Frontiers ETF	0.28%	0.41%	0.57%	0.62%	0.54%	1.79%	0.48%	0.74%	0.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ROKT and EMEQ in my portfolio?

ROKT and EMEQ have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ROKT or EMEQ?

EMEQ has higher volatility (19.34%) compared to ROKT (16.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ROKT dropped -43.16% vs EMEQ's -19.99%.

Which ETF is better, ROKT or EMEQ?

On 1-year performance, EMEQ leads with 141.42% vs 96.95% for ROKT. On fees, ROKT is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, ROKT has been the lower-risk option at 16.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ROKT or EMEQ?

Over the 1-year period, EMEQ has performed better with a 141.42% return vs 96.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ROKT or EMEQ?

ROKT is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ROKT or EMEQ?

EMEQ has the higher dividend yield at 1.62%, compared with 0.28% for ROKT.

What is the main difference between ROKT and EMEQ?

ROKT is categorized as Industrials Equities, while EMEQ is Emerging Markets Diversified. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Nomura. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for ROKT and 0.86% for EMEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMEQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.89 vs 3.15), 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.