XCEM vs. EMGF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) and EMGF (iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds - XCEM tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index while EMGF tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Diversified Multiple-Factor Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XCEM returned 10.60%/yr vs 9.61%/yr for EMGF. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. XCEM charges 0.16%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for EMGF.

Performance

XCEM vs. EMGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) and iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XCEM achieves a 23.54% return, which is significantly higher than EMGF's 18.62% return. Over the past 10 years, XCEM has outperformed EMGF with an annualized return of 10.60%, while EMGF has yielded a comparatively lower 9.61% annualized return.

XCEM

• 1D: 0.85%
• 1M: -6.40%
• 6M: 13.73%
• YTD: 23.54%
• 1Y: 44.82%
• 3Y*: 20.20%
• 5Y*: 10.30%
• 10Y*: 10.60%
• ALL TIME*: 11.31%

EMGF

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: -3.34%
• 6M: 9.69%
• YTD: 18.62%
• 1Y: 33.99%
• 3Y*: 20.71%
• 5Y*: 9.49%
• 10Y*: 9.61%
• ALL TIME*: 10.03%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EMGF iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF	$9.26M	$12.00M	$11.68M
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	$6.73M	$7.60M	$9.71M

XCEM vs. EMGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	23.54%	34.05%	0.42%	19.96%	-17.59%	7.87%	9.47%	19.74%	-11.75%	34.78%
EMGF iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF	18.62%	31.41%	9.06%	10.86%	-16.55%	6.65%	10.27%	20.96%	-19.71%	42.37%

Correlation

The correlation between XCEM and EMGF is 0.95, 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.	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.89
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2015	0.78

The correlation between XCEM and EMGF shifts across timeframes, from 0.78 (all time) to 0.95 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XCEM vs. EMGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XCEM	EMGF
Technology	50.4%	42.6%
Financial Services	17.2%	17.8%
Industrials	9.6%	7.5%
Basic Materials	5.2%	5.0%
Consumer Cyclical	4.6%	8.2%
Communication Services	3.2%	6.4%
Energy	3.1%	3.4%
Healthcare	2.3%	2.7%
Utilities	1.8%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	3.1%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.0%

Return for Risk

XCEM vs. EMGF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

XCEM

XCEM Risk / Return Rank: 71
XCEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
XCEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
XCEM Omega Ratio Rank: 76
XCEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
XCEM Martin Ratio Rank: 71

EMGF

EMGF Risk / Return Rank: 59
EMGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
EMGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
EMGF Omega Ratio Rank: 60
EMGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
EMGF Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

XCEM vs. EMGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) and iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF). 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.

	XCEM	EMGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	1.36	+0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.20	1.88	+0.33
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.26	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	2.25	+0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.62	7.04	+1.59

XCEM vs. EMGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is comparable to the EMGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCEM and EMGF, 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

XCEM vs. EMGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCEM drawdown since its inception was -41.24%, roughly equal to the maximum EMGF drawdown of -40.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCEM and EMGF.

Drawdown Indicators

	XCEM	EMGF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.24%	-40.23%	-1.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.20%	-14.63%	-3.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	-17.65%	-1.27%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.57%	-28.17%	-1.40%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.24%	-40.23%	-1.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.77%	-10.79%	-2.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.58%	-10.01%	+1.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.09%	4.67%	+0.42%

Volatility

XCEM vs. EMGF - Volatility Comparison

Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a higher volatility of 10.10% compared to iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF) at 8.59%. This indicates that XCEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XCEM	EMGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.10%	8.59%	+1.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.69%	22.28%	+2.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.35%	24.21%	+2.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.10%	18.66%	+0.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.11%	19.79%	+0.32%

XCEM vs. EMGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCEM has a 0.16% expense ratio, which is lower than EMGF's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

XCEM vs. EMGF - Dividend Comparison

XCEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.63%, more than EMGF's 2.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMGF iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF	2.12%	2.52%	3.42%	5.94%	4.04%	2.48%	1.95%	2.63%	2.73%	1.94%	2.04%	0.00%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	2.63%	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

Can I hold both XCEM and EMGF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, XCEM and EMGF 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.

Which is riskier, XCEM or EMGF?

XCEM has higher volatility (10.10%) compared to EMGF (8.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XCEM dropped -41.24% vs EMGF's -40.23%.

Which ETF is better, XCEM or EMGF?

On 10-year performance, XCEM leads with 10.60% vs 9.61% for EMGF. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, EMGF has been the lower-risk option at 8.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XCEM or EMGF?

Over the 10-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 10.60% return vs 9.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XCEM or EMGF?

XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for EMGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XCEM or EMGF?

XCEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.63%, compared with 2.12% for EMGF.

What is the main difference between XCEM and EMGF?

XCEM tracks MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index, while EMGF tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Diversified Multiple-Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: Columbia and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for XCEM and 0.45% for EMGF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.36), 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.