MFEM vs TYLG
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF vs Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
MFEM has a lower expense ratio. MFEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. MFEM offers more diversification with 701 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | MFEM | TYLG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.60% | |
| AUM | $156M | $15M | |
| Dividend Yield | 2.39% | 8.89% | |
| Holdings | 701 | 78 | |
| YTD Return | +23.10% | +19.70% | |
| 1Y Return | +33.79% | +32.42% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.24% | +22.80% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +8.86% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.7% | 15.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -45.3% | -24.5% | |
| Fund Family | PIMCO (US) | Global X by mirae Asset | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | Aug 31, 2017 | Nov 21, 2022 |
MFEM vs TYLG Performance
PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) is a ETF from PIMCO (US) and Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF (TYLG) is a ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year MFEM returned +33.79% while TYLG returned +32.42%. Year to date, MFEM is up 23.10% versus a gain of 19.70% for TYLG.
Over three years, MFEM compounded at +20.24% per year against +22.80% for TYLG. Across the full 4-year window we track, TYLG has the edge at +24.63% annualized vs +6.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
MFEM has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.7% compared with 15.8% for TYLG. 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 -24.5% for TYLG. 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 0.55. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
MFEM charges 0.49% per year while TYLG charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $60 annually, a gap of $11 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, MFEM currently yields 2.39% against 8.89% for TYLG.
Holdings Overlap
MFEM and TYLG share 0 holdings out of 577 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 TYLG?
MFEM has an expense ratio of 0.49% while TYLG charges 0.60%. MFEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $11 per year of difference.
Which performed better, MFEM or TYLG?
Over the past year MFEM returned +33.79% vs +32.42% for TYLG, so MFEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), MFEM annualized +6.96% vs +24.63% for TYLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, MFEM or TYLG?
MFEM has been the more volatile fund at 17.7% annualized versus 15.8% for TYLG. Worst drawdown: MFEM -45.3% vs TYLG -24.5%.
Should I hold both MFEM and TYLG?
MFEM and TYLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.55, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between MFEM and TYLG?
MFEM and TYLG share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 577 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, MFEM or TYLG?
MFEM yields 2.39% while TYLG yields 8.89%, so TYLG 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.