PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XCEM vs. EMGF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XCEM achieves a 43.27% return, which is significantly higher than EMGF's 32.97% return. Over the past 10 years, XCEM has outperformed EMGF with an annualized return of 13.36%, while EMGF has yielded a comparatively lower 11.88% annualized return.


XCEM

1D
0.26%
1M
11.26%
YTD
43.27%
6M
46.87%
1Y
73.75%
3Y*
27.69%
5Y*
13.15%
10Y*
13.36%

EMGF

1D
0.55%
1M
8.68%
YTD
32.97%
6M
34.74%
1Y
55.99%
3Y*
27.87%
5Y*
11.39%
10Y*
11.88%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XCEM vs. EMGF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
XCEM
Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF
43.27%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
32.97%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 0.94, 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

0.94

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.90

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.89

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.80

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 0.94 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XCEM vs. EMGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
XCEM
EMGF

Technology

37.1%
41.4%

Financial Services

22.8%
17.4%

Industrials

9.7%
7.2%

Basic Materials

6.4%
5.3%

Consumer Cyclical

6.3%
9.6%

Communication Services

4.2%
6.5%

Energy

3.8%
3.6%

Consumer Defensive

3.0%
3.4%

Healthcare

2.9%
2.4%

Utilities

1.9%
2.3%

Real Estate

1.8%
1.0%

Technology

XCEM
37.1%
EMGF
41.4%

Financial Services

XCEM
22.8%
EMGF
17.4%

Industrials

XCEM
9.7%
EMGF
7.2%

Basic Materials

XCEM
6.4%
EMGF
5.3%

Consumer Cyclical

XCEM
6.3%
EMGF
9.6%

Communication Services

XCEM
4.2%
EMGF
6.5%

Energy

XCEM
3.8%
EMGF
3.6%

Consumer Defensive

XCEM
3.0%
EMGF
3.4%

Healthcare

XCEM
2.9%
EMGF
2.4%

Utilities

XCEM
1.9%
EMGF
2.3%

Real Estate

XCEM
1.8%
EMGF
1.0%

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. EMGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

XCEM
XCEM Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
XCEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9393
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XCEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 8989
Sortino Ratio Rank
XCEM Omega Ratio Rank: 9191
Omega Ratio Rank
XCEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
XCEM Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank

EMGF
EMGF Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
EMGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMGF Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
EMGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMGF Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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.


XCEMEMGFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.61

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.60

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.57

1.48

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.13

4.16

+0.97

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.88

15.36

+4.51

XCEM vs. EMGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCEM Sharpe Ratio is 3.17, which is comparable to the EMGF Sharpe Ratio of 2.56. 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.


Loading charts...

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.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XCEMEMGFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.24%

-40.23%

-1.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.46%

-13.54%

-0.92%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.92%

-17.65%

-1.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-29.57%

-28.20%

-1.37%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.24%

-40.23%

-1.01%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.57%

-10.02%

+1.45%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.72%

3.66%

+0.06%

Volatility

XCEM vs. EMGF - Volatility Comparison

Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) has a higher volatility of 12.12% compared to iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF (EMGF) at 11.17%. 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XCEMEMGFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

12.12%

11.17%

+0.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.53%

19.89%

+1.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.42%

22.01%

+1.41%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.38%

18.18%

+0.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.91%

19.63%

+0.28%

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 2.27%, more than EMGF's 1.89% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMGF
iShares Edge MSCI Multifactor Emerging Markets ETF
1.89%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
2.27%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


With a correlation of 0.94, 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.

XCEM has higher volatility (12.12%) compared to EMGF (11.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XCEM dropped -41.24% vs EMGF's -40.23%.

On 10-year performance, XCEM leads with 13.36% vs 11.88% for EMGF. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, EMGF has been the lower-risk option at 11.17%. 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 13.36% return vs 11.88%. 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 0.45% for EMGF.

XCEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.27%, compared with 1.89% for 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: Ameriprise Financial and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for XCEM and 0.45% for EMGF.

XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.17 vs 2.56), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XCEM and EMGF

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