Screener
GEME vs GMF
Pacific NoS Global EM Equity Active ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF
Key differences
- GMF costs 0.26% less per year.
- GEME is classified as equity, while GMF is alternative — different risk/return profiles.
- GEME follows a active selection strategy; GMF uses index tracking.
- GMF has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| GEME | GMF | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.75% | 0.49% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $265M | $386M |
| Since | 2025 | 2007 |
| Dividend yield | 4.11% | 1.39% |
| Asset class | equity | alternative |
| Region | — | emerging markets |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +72.0% | +26.7% |
| CAGR 3Y | N/A | +17.9% |
| CAGR 5Y | N/A | +5.8% |
| Sharpe 3Y | N/A | 0.84 |
| Volatility 1Y | 20.99% | 16.22% |
| Max drawdown | -16.86% | -40.18% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to GEME and GMF
Explore further