UMMA vs. KEMX

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) and KEMX (KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. UMMA is actively managed, while KEMX is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, UMMA returned 23.04%/yr vs 28.53%/yr for KEMX. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. UMMA charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for KEMX.

Performance

UMMA vs. KEMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) and KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UMMA achieves a 33.37% return, which is significantly lower than KEMX's 40.15% return.

UMMA

• 1D: 2.27%
• 1M: 4.19%
• YTD: 33.37%
• 6M: 33.68%
• 1Y: 52.69%
• 3Y*: 23.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

KEMX

• 1D: 1.31%
• 1M: 2.22%
• YTD: 40.15%
• 6M: 41.62%
• 1Y: 68.58%
• 3Y*: 28.53%
• 5Y*: 13.57%
• 10Y*: —

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

UMMA vs. KEMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	33.37%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	40.15%	38.28%	0.36%	20.57%	-19.04%

Correlation

The correlation between UMMA and KEMX is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2022	0.83

The correlation between UMMA and KEMX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

UMMA vs. KEMX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UMMA	KEMX
Technology	48.2%	46.8%
Healthcare	14.8%	1.5%
Industrials	12.1%	7.6%
Basic Materials	8.8%	7.6%
Consumer Cyclical	7.3%	5.5%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	2.6%
Energy	2.4%	4.0%
Communication Services	1.0%	2.9%
Real Estate	0.4%	1.0%
Financial Services	0.0%	18.7%
Utilities	-	1.7%

Return for Risk

UMMA vs. KEMX — Risk / Return Rank

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

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 80
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 80
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 80

KEMX

KEMX Risk / Return Rank: 88
KEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
KEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
KEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 89
KEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
KEMX 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.

UMMA vs. KEMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) and KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX). 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.

	UMMA	KEMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.32	2.74	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.97	3.28	-0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.49	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.55	4.49	-0.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.53	16.95	-3.42

UMMA vs. KEMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UMMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.32, which is comparable to the KEMX Sharpe Ratio of 2.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UMMA and KEMX, 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

UMMA vs. KEMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UMMA drawdown since its inception was -34.17%, smaller than the maximum KEMX drawdown of -38.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UMMA and KEMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	UMMA	KEMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.17%	-38.80%	+4.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.93%	-15.36%	+0.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.73%	-19.62%	+0.89%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.25%	-4.61%	+2.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.72%	-8.82%	-0.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.91%	4.06%	-0.15%

Volatility

UMMA vs. KEMX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) is 11.87%, while KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (KEMX) has a volatility of 12.89%. This indicates that UMMA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KEMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UMMA	KEMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.87%	12.89%	-1.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.40%	23.20%	-2.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.78%	25.17%	-2.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.09%	18.97%	+2.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.09%	21.33%	-0.24%

UMMA vs. KEMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

UMMA has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than KEMX's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

UMMA vs. KEMX - Dividend Comparison

UMMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, less than KEMX's 2.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
KEMX KraneShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	2.34%	3.28%	3.39%	2.00%	4.10%	4.79%	1.69%	2.77%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.91%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UMMA and KEMX in my portfolio?

UMMA and KEMX have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UMMA or KEMX?

KEMX has higher volatility (12.89%) compared to UMMA (11.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UMMA dropped -34.17% vs KEMX's -38.80%.

Which ETF is better, UMMA or KEMX?

On 3-year performance, KEMX leads with 28.53% vs 23.04% for UMMA. On fees, KEMX is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, UMMA has been the lower-risk option at 11.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UMMA or KEMX?

Over the 3-year period, KEMX has performed better with a 28.53% return vs 23.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UMMA or KEMX?

KEMX is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, UMMA or KEMX?

KEMX has the higher dividend yield at 2.34%, compared with 0.91% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between UMMA and KEMX?

They also come from different issuers: Wahed and CICC. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for UMMA and 0.25% for KEMX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KEMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 2.32), 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.