Screener
GMF vs GEME
State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF vs Pacific NoS Global EM Equity Active ETF
Key differences
- GMF costs 0.26% less per year.
- GMF is classified as alternative, while GEME is equity — different risk/return profiles.
- GMF follows a index tracking strategy; GEME uses active selection.
- GMF has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| GMF | GEME | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.49% | 0.75% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $386M | $265M |
| Since | 2007 | 2025 |
| Dividend yield | 1.39% | 4.11% |
| Asset class | alternative | equity |
| Region | emerging markets | — |
| Strategy | index tracking | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | +30.3% | +80.5% |
| CAGR 3Y | +19.3% | N/A |
| CAGR 5Y | +6.1% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.91 | N/A |
| Volatility 1Y | 16.42% | 21.12% |
| Max drawdown | -40.18% | -16.86% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to GMF and GEME
Explore further