EEMA vs VTI
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF vs Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF
Quick Verdict
VTI has a lower expense ratio. EEMA delivered stronger 1-year returns. VTI offers more diversification with 2783 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EEMA | VTI | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $831M | $663.5B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.31% | 1.07% | |
| Holdings | 899 | 3,543 | |
| YTD Return | +18.66% | +13.87% | |
| 1Y Return | +37.98% | +23.31% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.75% | +21.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.56% | +12.23% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.1% | 15.3% | |
| Max Drawdown | -44.3% | -56.6% | |
| Fund Family | iShares by BlackRock (US) | Vanguard (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Feb 8, 2012 | May 24, 2001 |
EEMA vs VTI Performance
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US) and Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is a ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year EEMA returned +37.98% while VTI returned +23.31%. Year to date, EEMA is up 18.66% versus a gain of 13.87% for VTI.
Over three years, EEMA compounded at +22.75% per year against +21.17% for VTI; over five years the annualized figures are +7.56% and +12.23% respectively. Across the full 15-year window we track, VTI has the edge at +8.13% annualized vs +5.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EEMA has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.1% compared with 15.3% for VTI. 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 -44.3% for EEMA and -56.6% for VTI. 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 0.65. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EEMA charges 0.49% per year while VTI charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $3 annually, a gap of $46 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EEMA currently yields 1.31% against 1.07% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
EEMA and VTI share 1 holdings out of 3561 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in EEMA | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAL | 0.10% | 0.04% | 0.06% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EEMA or VTI?
EEMA has an expense ratio of 0.49% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $46 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EEMA or VTI?
Over the past year EEMA returned +37.98% vs +23.31% for VTI, so EEMA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (15 years), EEMA annualized +5.87% vs +8.13% for VTI. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EEMA or VTI?
EEMA has been the more volatile fund at 17.1% annualized versus 15.3% for VTI. Worst drawdown: EEMA -44.3% vs VTI -56.6%.
Should I hold both EEMA and VTI?
EEMA and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.65, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EEMA and VTI?
EEMA and VTI share 1 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 3561 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EEMA or VTI?
EEMA yields 1.31% while VTI yields 1.07%, so EEMA 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.