MFEM vs SBIO
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF vs ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF
Quick Verdict
MFEM has a lower expense ratio. SBIO delivered stronger 1-year returns. MFEM offers more diversification with 701 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | MFEM | SBIO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.50% | |
| AUM | $156M | $221M | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.39% | 0.00% | |
| Holdings | 701 | 107 | |
| YTD Return | +21.80% | +37.78% | |
| 1Y Return | +33.81% | +100.50% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.43% | +34.22% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.97% | +9.90% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.7% | 29.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -45.3% | -63.1% | |
| Fund Family | PIMCO (US) | ALPS Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Aug 31, 2017 | Dec 30, 2014 |
MFEM vs SBIO Performance
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) is a ETF from PIMCO (US) and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors. Over the past year MFEM returned +33.81% while SBIO returned +100.50%. Year to date, MFEM is up 21.80% versus a gain of 37.78% for SBIO.
Over three years, MFEM compounded at +20.43% per year against +34.22% for SBIO; over five years the annualized figures are +8.97% and +9.90% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, SBIO has the edge at +9.97% annualized vs +6.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SBIO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.6% compared with 17.7% for MFEM. 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 -45.3% for MFEM and -63.1% for SBIO. 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 0.43. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MFEM charges 0.49% per year while SBIO charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $50 annually, a gap of $1 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MFEM currently yields 2.39% against 0.00% for SBIO.
Holdings Overlap
MFEM and SBIO share 0 holdings out of 608 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, MFEM or SBIO?
MFEM has an expense ratio of 0.49% while SBIO charges 0.50%. MFEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $1 per year of difference.
Which performed better, MFEM or SBIO?
Over the past year MFEM returned +33.81% vs +100.50% for SBIO, so SBIO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), MFEM annualized +6.84% vs +9.97% for SBIO. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, MFEM or SBIO?
SBIO has been the more volatile fund at 29.6% annualized versus 17.7% for MFEM. Worst drawdown: MFEM -45.3% vs SBIO -63.1%.
Should I hold both MFEM and SBIO?
MFEM and SBIO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.43, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between MFEM and SBIO?
MFEM and SBIO share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 608 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, MFEM or SBIO?
MFEM yields 2.39% while SBIO yields 0.00%, so MFEM 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.