XCNY vs. EEMS

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

XCNY (SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and EEMS (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds - XCNY tracks the S&P Emerging ex-China BMI while EEMS tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, XCNY returned 31.84% vs 20.67% for EEMS. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. XCNY charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.73%/yr for EEMS.

Performance

XCNY vs. EEMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XCNY achieves a 18.28% return, which is significantly higher than EEMS's 11.30% return.

XCNY

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: -0.34%
• YTD: 18.28%
• 6M: 18.79%
• 1Y: 31.84%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EEMS

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: -4.96%
• YTD: 11.30%
• 6M: 12.14%
• 1Y: 20.67%
• 3Y*: 15.22%
• 5Y*: 6.27%
• 10Y*: 9.50%

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

XCNY vs. EEMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
XCNY SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	18.28%	20.42%	-3.63%
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	11.30%	19.78%	-2.53%

Correlation

The correlation between XCNY and EEMS is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 5, 2024	0.86

The correlation between XCNY and EEMS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

XCNY vs. EEMS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XCNY	EEMS
Technology	37.1%	26.4%
Financial Services	11.8%	9.9%
Industrials	3.7%	18.2%
Basic Materials	3.7%	8.6%
Energy	3.4%	2.1%
Consumer Cyclical	2.9%	9.9%
Utilities	1.8%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	1.7%	4.9%
Communication Services	1.3%	2.9%
Real Estate	0.9%	5.8%
Healthcare	0.7%	8.7%

Return for Risk

XCNY vs. EEMS — Risk / Return Rank

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

XCNY

XCNY Risk / Return Rank: 61
XCNY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
XCNY Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
XCNY Omega Ratio Rank: 62
XCNY Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
XCNY Martin Ratio Rank: 63

EEMS

EEMS Risk / Return Rank: 37
EEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
EEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
EEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 35
EEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
EEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

XCNY vs. EEMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS). 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.

	XCNY	EEMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.78	1.09	+0.69
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.45	1.53	+0.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.21	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.70	1.91	+0.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.05	6.34	+3.71

XCNY vs. EEMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCNY Sharpe Ratio is 1.78, which is higher than the EEMS Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCNY and EEMS, 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

XCNY vs. EEMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCNY drawdown since its inception was -19.70%, smaller than the maximum EEMS drawdown of -48.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCNY and EEMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	XCNY	EEMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.70%	-48.89%	+29.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.86%	-10.87%	-0.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.71%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.07%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-48.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.19%	-5.24%	+1.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.09%	-10.48%	+6.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.18%	3.27%	-0.09%

Volatility

XCNY vs. EEMS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY) is 8.09%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF (EEMS) has a volatility of 9.25%. This indicates that XCNY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XCNY	EEMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.09%	9.25%	-1.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.23%	17.17%	-0.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.94%	18.96%	-1.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.35%	16.50%	+1.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.35%	18.12%	+0.23%

XCNY vs. EEMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCNY has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMS's 0.73% expense ratio.

Dividends

XCNY vs. EEMS - Dividend Comparison

XCNY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.26%, less than EEMS's 2.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMS iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Small-Cap ETF	2.87%	3.09%	2.60%	2.69%	0.89%	3.56%	2.14%	2.64%	3.06%	2.47%	2.51%	2.33%
XCNY SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	2.26%	2.68%	1.07%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XCNY and EEMS in my portfolio?

XCNY and EEMS have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XCNY or EEMS?

EEMS has higher volatility (9.25%) compared to XCNY (8.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XCNY dropped -19.70% vs EEMS's -48.89%.

Which ETF is better, XCNY or EEMS?

On 1-year performance, XCNY leads with 31.84% vs 20.67% for EEMS. On fees, XCNY is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, XCNY has been the lower-risk option at 8.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XCNY or EEMS?

Over the 1-year period, XCNY has performed better with a 31.84% return vs 20.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XCNY or EEMS?

XCNY is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.73% for EEMS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XCNY or EEMS?

EEMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.87%, compared with 2.26% for XCNY.

What is the main difference between XCNY and EEMS?

XCNY tracks S&P Emerging ex-China BMI, while EEMS tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Small Cap Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for XCNY and 0.73% for EEMS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XCNY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs 1.09), 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.