XCEM vs. EMB
XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) and EMB (iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XCEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index, while EMB is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the JPMorgan EMBI Global Core Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XCEM returned 12.99%/yr vs 3.29%/yr for EMB. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XCEM charges 0.16%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for EMB.
Performance
XCEM vs. EMB - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, XCEM achieves a 38.32% return, which is significantly higher than EMB's 1.80% return. Over the past 10 years, XCEM has outperformed EMB with an annualized return of 12.99%, while EMB has yielded a comparatively lower 3.29% annualized return.
XCEM
- 1D
- -1.25%
- 1M
- 12.13%
- YTD
- 38.32%
- 6M
- 44.13%
- 1Y
- 71.14%
- 3Y*
- 26.37%
- 5Y*
- 11.95%
- 10Y*
- 12.99%
EMB
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- 1.29%
- YTD
- 1.80%
- 6M
- 1.93%
- 1Y
- 11.56%
- 3Y*
- 9.74%
- 5Y*
- 1.86%
- 10Y*
- 3.29%
XCEM vs. EMB - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF | 38.32% | 34.05% | 0.42% | 19.96% | -17.59% | 7.87% | 9.47% | 19.74% | -11.75% | 34.78% |
EMB iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 1.80% | 13.85% | 5.54% | 10.62% | -18.63% | -2.23% | 5.42% | 15.48% | -5.47% | 10.28% |
Correlation
The correlation between XCEM and EMB is 0.58, 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 | 0.58 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.51 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.51 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.48 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 3, 2015 | 0.48 |
The correlation between XCEM and EMB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
XCEM vs. EMB — Risk / Return Rank
XCEM
EMB
XCEM vs. EMB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) and iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB). 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.
| XCEM | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.33 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.22 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.61 | 1.41 | +0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.95 | 2.58 | +2.37 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 19.98 | 11.01 | +8.97 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| XCEM | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.42 | 2.09 | +1.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.68 | 0.19 | +0.49 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.66 | 0.33 | +0.33 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.63 | 0.44 | +0.20 |
Drawdowns
XCEM vs. EMB - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XCEM drawdown since its inception was -41.24%, which is greater than EMB's maximum drawdown of -34.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCEM and EMB.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XCEM | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -41.24% | -34.70% | -6.54% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.46% | -4.51% | -9.95% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.92% | -7.95% | -10.97% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -29.67% | -28.74% | -0.93% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.24% | -28.74% | -12.50% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.25% | -0.37% | -0.88% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.59% | -5.06% | -3.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.57% | 1.05% | +2.52% |
Volatility
XCEM vs. EMB - Volatility Comparison
Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a higher volatility of 9.43% compared to iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB) at 1.85%. This indicates that XCEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XCEM | EMB | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.43% | 1.85% | +7.58% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 18.72% | 4.52% | +14.20% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 20.89% | 5.56% | +15.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.75% | 9.75% | +8.00% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.72% | 9.96% | +9.76% |
XCEM vs. EMB - Expense Ratio Comparison
XCEM has a 0.16% expense ratio, which is lower than EMB's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
XCEM vs. EMB - Dividend Comparison
XCEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.35%, less than EMB's 5.06% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMB iShares J.P. Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF | 5.06% | 4.98% | 5.46% | 4.74% | 5.04% | 3.89% | 3.88% | 4.51% | 5.64% | 4.54% | 4.83% | 4.84% |
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF | 2.35% | 3.25% | 2.76% | 1.22% | 2.42% | 1.94% | 1.63% | 2.11% | 2.70% | 9.56% | 1.24% | 2.63% |
Frequently Asked Questions
XCEM and EMB have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XCEM has higher volatility (9.43%) compared to EMB (1.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XCEM dropped -41.24% vs EMB's -34.70%.
On 10-year performance, XCEM leads with 12.99% vs 3.29% for EMB. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, EMB has been the lower-risk option at 1.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 12.99% return vs 3.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for EMB.
EMB has the higher dividend yield at 5.06%, compared with 2.35% for XCEM.
XCEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while EMB is Emerging Markets Bonds. XCEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index, while EMB tracks JPMorgan EMBI Global Core Index. They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for XCEM and 0.39% for EMB.
XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.42 vs 2.09), 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.
Find the right allocation for XCEM and EMB
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