XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XEMC.TO (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF) and CASH.TO (Global X High Interest Savings ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XEMC.TO is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index (Net), while CASH.TO is a Money Market fund actively managed by Global X. XEMC.TO is passively managed, while CASH.TO is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, XEMC.TO returned 29.39%/yr vs 3.62%/yr for CASH.TO. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. XEMC.TO charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.11%/yr for CASH.TO.

Performance

XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (XEMC.TO) and Global X High Interest Savings ETF (CASH.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XEMC.TO achieves a 41.75% return, which is significantly higher than CASH.TO's 0.84% return.

XEMC.TO

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: 10.50%
• YTD: 41.75%
• 6M: 44.15%
• 1Y: 75.62%
• 3Y*: 29.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CASH.TO

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 0.84%
• 6M: 1.02%
• 1Y: 2.23%
• 3Y*: 3.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XEMC.TO iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	41.75%	28.28%	10.87%	12.07%
CASH.TO Global X High Interest Savings ETF	0.84%	2.45%	4.53%	4.52%

Correlation

The correlation between XEMC.TO and CASH.TO is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 16, 2023	-0.01

Return for Risk

XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

XEMC.TO

XEMC.TO Risk / Return Rank: 92
XEMC.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
XEMC.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
XEMC.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 93
XEMC.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
XEMC.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 91

CASH.TO

CASH.TO Risk / Return Rank: 100
CASH.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
CASH.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CASH.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CASH.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CASH.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (XEMC.TO) and Global X High Interest Savings ETF (CASH.TO). 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.

	XEMC.TO	CASH.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.67	10.38	-6.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.53	32.63	-28.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.65	7.50	-5.85
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.80	112.00	-106.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.11	470.40	-448.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XEMC.TO Sharpe Ratio is 3.67, which is lower than the CASH.TO Sharpe Ratio of 10.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XEMC.TO and CASH.TO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	XEMC.TO	CASH.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.67	10.38	-6.72
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.79	5.52	-3.73

Drawdowns

XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XEMC.TO drawdown since its inception was -14.55%, which is greater than CASH.TO's maximum drawdown of -0.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XEMC.TO and CASH.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	XEMC.TO	CASH.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.55%	-0.80%	-13.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.12%	-0.02%	-13.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.55%	-0.06%	-14.49%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.84%	0.00%	-1.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.19%	-0.00%	-2.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.43%	0.00%	+3.43%

Volatility

XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF (XEMC.TO) has a higher volatility of 9.06% compared to Global X High Interest Savings ETF (CASH.TO) at 0.06%. This indicates that XEMC.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CASH.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XEMC.TO	CASH.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.06%	0.06%	+9.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.49%	0.13%	+18.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.75%	0.22%	+20.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.75%	0.61%	+15.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.75%	0.61%	+15.14%

XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XEMC.TO has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than CASH.TO's 0.11% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

XEMC.TO vs. CASH.TO - Dividend Comparison

XEMC.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, less than CASH.TO's 2.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CASH.TO Global X High Interest Savings ETF	2.19%	2.53%	4.37%	5.06%	2.30%	0.10%
XEMC.TO iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China Index ETF	1.75%	2.48%	2.28%	1.67%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XEMC.TO and CASH.TO in my portfolio?

XEMC.TO and CASH.TO have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XEMC.TO or CASH.TO?

On fees, CASH.TO is cheaper at 0.11% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XEMC.TO or CASH.TO?

CASH.TO is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XEMC.TO.

What is the main difference between XEMC.TO and CASH.TO?

XEMC.TO is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while CASH.TO is Money Market. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for XEMC.TO and 0.11% for CASH.TO.