Screener
GMF vs IPAC
State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF vs iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF
Key differences
- IPAC costs 0.40% less per year.
- IPAC is significantly larger than GMF — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- GMF is classified as alternative, while IPAC is equity — different risk/return profiles.
- Over the last 3 years, GMF has delivered higher annualized returns.
- GMF has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| GMF | IPAC | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.49% | 0.09% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $386M | $2.5B |
| Since | 2007 | 2014 |
| Dividend yield | 1.39% | 3.92% |
| Asset class | alternative | equity |
| Region | emerging markets | — |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +26.7% | +29.3% |
| CAGR 3Y | +17.9% | +16.5% |
| CAGR 5Y | +5.8% | +8.1% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.84 | 0.79 |
| Volatility 1Y | 16.22% | 16.58% |
| Max drawdown | -40.18% | -31.00% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to GMF and IPAC
Explore further