PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO

Last updated Aug 5, 2026
Documentation

XMM.TO (iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF) and EMCL.NEO (Global X Enhanced MSCI Emerging Markets Covered Call ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. XMM.TO is passively managed, while EMCL.NEO is actively managed. Over the past year, XMM.TO returned 23.63% vs 43.02% for EMCL.NEO. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. XMM.TO charges 0.42%/yr vs 1.83%/yr for EMCL.NEO.

Performance

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF (XMM.TO) and Global X Enhanced MSCI Emerging Markets Covered Call ETF (EMCL.NEO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XMM.TO achieves a 18.53% return, which is significantly lower than EMCL.NEO's 24.18% return.

XMM.TO

1D
3.53%
1M
-1.65%
6M
13.71%
YTD
18.53%
1Y
23.63%
3Y*
14.39%
5Y*
7.96%
10Y*
6.06%
ALL TIME*
6.62%

EMCL.NEO

1D
4.56%
1M
0.01%
6M
17.22%
YTD
24.18%
1Y
43.02%
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
22.27%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

EMCL.NEO

Global X Enhanced MSCI Emerging Markets Covered Call ETF
CA$76.62KCA$60.32KCA$48.53K

XMM.TO

iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF
CA$59.82KCA$74.15KCA$94.80K

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024
XMM.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF		18.53%7.65%10.10%
EMCL.NEO
Global X Enhanced MSCI Emerging Markets Covered Call ETF		24.18%20.46%3.66%

Correlation

The correlation between XMM.TO and EMCL.NEO is 0.70, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.70

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2024

0.57

The correlation between XMM.TO and EMCL.NEO shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (all time) to 0.70 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
XMM.TO
EMCL.NEO

Technology

37.4%
46.9%

Financial Services

18.3%
17.9%

Communication Services

10.0%
5.7%

Consumer Cyclical

6.7%
5.8%

Industrials

5.8%
6.8%

Healthcare

5.5%
1.9%

Consumer Defensive

5.4%
2.5%

Utilities

4.2%
1.8%

Energy

3.5%
3.4%

Basic Materials

2.6%
6.3%

Real Estate

0.6%
1.0%

Technology

XMM.TO
37.4%
EMCL.NEO
46.9%

Financial Services

XMM.TO
18.3%
EMCL.NEO
17.9%

Communication Services

XMM.TO
10.0%
EMCL.NEO
5.7%

Consumer Cyclical

XMM.TO
6.7%
EMCL.NEO
5.8%

Industrials

XMM.TO
5.8%
EMCL.NEO
6.8%

Healthcare

XMM.TO
5.5%
EMCL.NEO
1.9%

Consumer Defensive

XMM.TO
5.4%
EMCL.NEO
2.5%

Utilities

XMM.TO
4.2%
EMCL.NEO
1.8%

Energy

XMM.TO
3.5%
EMCL.NEO
3.4%

Basic Materials

XMM.TO
2.6%
EMCL.NEO
6.3%

Real Estate

XMM.TO
0.6%
EMCL.NEO
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.

iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF

Global X Enhanced MSCI Emerging Markets Covered Call ETF

Often compared with XMM.TO:
XMM.TO vs. XSEM.TOXMM.TO vs. XMU.TOXMM.TO vs. XEC.TOXMM.TO vs. XEQT.TOXMM.TO vs. HTAE.TOXMM.TO vs. SPMOXMM.TO vs. VEE.TO
Often compared with EMCL.NEO:
EMCL.NEO vs. EQCC.TOEMCL.NEO vs. EQCL.TOEMCL.NEO vs. BKCL.TOEMCL.NEO vs. ZWC.TOEMCL.NEO vs. EACC.NEOEMCL.NEO vs. BKCC.TOEMCL.NEO vs. HEQT.TO

Return for Risk

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
XMM.TO
XMM.TO Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
XMM.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMM.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMM.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
XMM.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMM.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 5656
Martin Ratio Rank
EMCL.NEO
EMCL.NEO Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
EMCL.NEO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMCL.NEO Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMCL.NEO Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
EMCL.NEO Calmar Ratio Rank: 7272
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMCL.NEO Martin Ratio Rank: 6868
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF (XMM.TO) and Global X Enhanced MSCI Emerging Markets Covered Call ETF (EMCL.NEO). 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.

XMM.TOEMCL.NEODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.47
1.71

-0.24

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.09
2.19

-0.10

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.34

-0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.35

2.85

-0.50

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.34

9.43

-2.09

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XMM.TO Sharpe Ratio is 1.47, which is comparable to the EMCL.NEO Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMM.TO and EMCL.NEO, 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

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMM.TO drawdown since its inception was -22.07%, which is greater than EMCL.NEO's maximum drawdown of -19.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XMM.TO and EMCL.NEO.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

XMM.TOEMCL.NEODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.07%

-19.73%

-2.34%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.09%

-15.37%

+5.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.09%

—

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.42%

—

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-22.07%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.89%

-6.72%

+1.83%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.19%

-2.90%

-2.29%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.23%

4.62%

-1.39%

Volatility

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF (XMM.TO) is 7.33%, while Global X Enhanced MSCI Emerging Markets Covered Call ETF (EMCL.NEO) has a volatility of 11.76%. This indicates that XMM.TO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMCL.NEO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

XMM.TOEMCL.NEODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.33%

11.76%

-4.43%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.99%

24.11%

-9.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.15%

25.67%

-9.52%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.21%

24.25%

-13.04%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

12.33%

24.25%

-11.92%

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO - Expense Ratio Comparison

XMM.TO has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than EMCL.NEO's 1.83% expense ratio.

Dividends

XMM.TO vs. EMCL.NEO - Dividend Comparison

XMM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.97%, less than EMCL.NEO's 10.84% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EMCL.NEO
Global X Enhanced MSCI Emerging Markets Covered Call ETF		10.84%9.86%3.10%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XMM.TO
iShares MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets Index ETF		1.97%2.37%2.95%2.55%1.55%1.91%2.09%2.44%2.23%2.09%2.35%2.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

XMM.TO and EMCL.NEO have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, XMM.TO is cheaper at 0.42% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

XMM.TO is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 1.83% for EMCL.NEO.

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for XMM.TO and 1.83% for EMCL.NEO.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMM.TO and EMCL.NEO

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