Screener
IPAC vs GMF
iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF vs State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia 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.
- IPAC is classified as equity, while GMF is alternative — 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
| IPAC | GMF | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.09% | 0.49% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $2.5B | $386M |
| Since | 2014 | 2007 |
| Dividend yield | 3.92% | 1.39% |
| Asset class | equity | alternative |
| Region | — | emerging markets |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +29.3% | +26.7% |
| CAGR 3Y | +16.5% | +17.9% |
| CAGR 5Y | +8.1% | +5.8% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.79 | 0.84 |
| Volatility 1Y | 16.58% | 16.22% |
| Max drawdown | -31.00% | -40.18% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to IPAC and GMF
Explore further