BBEM vs MFEM
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF vs PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF
Quick Verdict
BBEM has a lower expense ratio. MFEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. BBEM offers more diversification with 889 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | BBEM | MFEM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15% | 0.49% | |
| AUM | $748M | $142M | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.52% | 2.14% | |
| Holdings | 1,132 | 730 | |
| YTD Return | +15.60% | +20.26% | |
| 1Y Return | +32.87% | +33.25% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.02% | +19.51% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +8.07% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.1% | 17.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -17.4% | -45.3% | |
| Fund Family | J.P. Morgan Asset Management | PIMCO (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | May 10, 2023 | Aug 31, 2017 |
BBEM vs MFEM Performance
JPMorgan BetaBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) is a ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) is a ETF from PIMCO (US). Over the past year BBEM returned +32.87% while MFEM returned +33.25%. Year to date, BBEM is up 15.60% versus a gain of 20.26% for MFEM.
Over three years, BBEM compounded at +20.02% per year against +19.51% for MFEM. Across the full 3-year window we track, BBEM has the edge at +19.41% annualized vs +6.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MFEM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.6% compared with 15.1% for BBEM. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -17.4% for BBEM and -45.3% for MFEM. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BBEM charges 0.15% per year while MFEM charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $49 annually, a gap of $34 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BBEM currently yields 2.52% against 2.14% for MFEM.
Holdings Overlap
BBEM and MFEM share 297 holdings out of 1296 unique holdings combined, representing a 28.4% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, BBEM or MFEM?
BBEM has an expense ratio of 0.15% while MFEM charges 0.49%. BBEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $34 per year of difference.
Which performed better, BBEM or MFEM?
Over the past year BBEM returned +32.87% vs +33.25% for MFEM, so MFEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), BBEM annualized +19.41% vs +6.71% for MFEM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, BBEM or MFEM?
MFEM has been the more volatile fund at 17.6% annualized versus 15.1% for BBEM. Worst drawdown: BBEM -17.4% vs MFEM -45.3%.
Should I hold both BBEM and MFEM?
BBEM and MFEM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, so they move almost identically. Holding both adds little diversification - most investors pick one, usually on fees or the specific index tracked.
What is the holdings overlap between BBEM and MFEM?
BBEM and MFEM share 297 common holdings with a 28.4% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 1296 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, BBEM or MFEM?
BBEM yields 2.52% while MFEM yields 2.14%, so BBEM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.