Skip to content

GEM vs QLVE

Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF

GEMBNYSE Arca

Northern Trust Emerging Markets Quality Low Volatility ETF

QLVEBNYSE Arca

Overlap

Expense ratio

QLVE −0.17pt a year

GEM0.35%QLVE0.18%

Avg volume · 30D

GEM 307.3×the volume

GEM124KQLVE404

5Y return · a year

Same figure. Both funds show the same value, so neither comes out ahead.

GEM+7.0%QLVE+7.0%

GEM vs QLVE Performance

Oct 29, 2021 – Oct 30, 2026

+40.2%GEM+40.2%QLVE

Oct 29, 2021 to Oct 30, 2026. GEM +40.2%. QLVE +40.2%. Use the arrow keys to read each point.−20%0%60%Oct 2021Apr 2024Oct 2026
Expense ratio
GEM 0.35%
QLVE 0.18%, better
Fund size
GEM $1.68B
QLVE $16M
1Y total return
GEM +13.2%, better
QLVE +11.2%
Yield (12M)
GEM 2.06%
QLVE 3.17%, better
Holdings
GEM 734
QLVE 155
Avg volume (30D)
GEM 124K sh, better
QLVE 404 sh
NAV per share
GEM $47.78
QLVE $32.48
52W range

ETF.net Grade

GEM: Cost 68, Risk 41, Mission not scored, Tradability 52, Holdings 37, Durability 76. QLVE: Cost 100, Risk 66, Mission 93, Tradability 11, Holdings 32, Durability 33.
Pillar letters and Scores for GEM, QLVE, with each pillar’s weight
PillarGEMQLVE
Cost30% weightB68A100Higher
Mission25% weightNot scoredA93
Risk15% weightC41B66Higher
Tradability15% weightC52HigherF11
Holdings10% weightD37HigherD32
Durability5% weightA76HigherD33

Rank among Emerging Markets Multifactor funds

Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

Same Category. GEM and QLVE are both graded against the same 20 Emerging Markets Multifactor funds, so their Grades compare head to head.

See all 20 ›

QLVE ranks 7th and GEM 9th of 20 funds in the Emerging Markets Multifactor Category.

  1. Rank 6BJPEMJPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETFScore 62
  2. Rank 7BQLVENorthern Trust Emerging Markets Quality Low Volatility ETFScore 61
  3. Rank 8BROAMHartford Multifactor Emerging Markets ETFScore 60
  4. Rank 9BGEMGoldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETFScore 56
  5. Rank 10CUEVMVictoryShares Emerging Markets Value Momentum ETFScore 50

Our read on each fund

ETF.net Research

GEMBGoldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF

QLVEBNorthern Trust Emerging Markets Quality Low Volatility ETF

In short

GEM Goldman's 2015 ETF debut class included this one: emerging markets screened through four factors (value, momentum, quality, low volatility) across roughly 700 names for 0.35% a year. A full-market map with tilts, not a concentrated bet.

QLVE Most emerging-markets factor funds chase value. QLVE goes the other way: cut the weakest fifth on quality, then optimize what is left toward lower volatility. Cost is 0.18% net of a waiver through March 1, 2027.

Stated mandate

GEM The Fund seeks to closely track, before fees and expenses, the Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta® Emerging Markets Equity Index, which provides exposure to equity securities of emerging-market issuers.

QLVE The Fund is designed for investors seeking emerging-markets exposure with an emphasis on quality and low volatility. It seeks to match, before fees and expenses, the performance of the Northern Trust Emerging Markets Quality Low Volatility Index.

Why people hold it

  • GEM Four factors at once: good value, strong momentum, high quality and low volatility, scored stock by stock and blended, so no single tilt runs the portfolio.gsam.com
  • 0.35% a year, below the median for emerging-market multifactor funds, with no fee waiver doing the work: the gross and net numbers are the same.
  • Roughly 700 holdings gives it the breadth of a core EM index fund rather than a narrow factor sleeve, and it has been a multi-billion-dollar fund trading since 2015.
  • One of the stronger implementations in a crowded multifactor emerging-market field, and it tracks a single named index rather than a shifting in-house process.gsam.com
  • QLVE At 0.18% net of a waiver through March 1, 2027, it undercuts every top-scoring fund in its peer group, including EMGF at 0.26% and FDEM at 0.25%.
  • The index cuts the lowest-quality fifth of emerging-markets large and mid caps on profitability, cash flow and capital deployment, then optimizes the rest for lower volatility.flexshares.comnortherntrust.com
  • Sector, industry and country weights are held within set bands of the parent benchmark and turnover is capped near 12% a rebalance, curbing the sector drift low-vol screens invite.northerntrust.comsec.gov
  • Sits in the upper half of its emerging-markets factor peer group and has stayed close to its stated index.

Worth knowing

  • GEM Cheaper multifactor EM options exist: EMGF at 0.26% and FDEM at 0.25%, neither leaning on a waiver.
  • Blending four factors mutes each one, so the tilt is gentler than a single-factor fund like AVES, which goes all in on value.
  • Emerging-market stocks swing hard, and currency moves and country concentration come with the mandate. The factor screen tilts that exposure, it does not defuse it.
  • QLVE Thinly traded with a small asset base, so spreads can run wider than the category heavyweights and limit orders matter more.
  • Roughly 160 holdings with meaningful weight in the largest names, so it is more top-heavy than a broad emerging-markets index fund.
  • Lower volatility is the design goal, not an outcome the fund controls: the index aims to be calmer than its parent, and the fund tracks it either way.sec.govflexshares.com

Full GEM profile⁠

Full QLVE profile⁠

GEM vs QLVE Holdings

How we measure overlap

Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.

GEM vs QLVE Cost

Overpaying GEM vs QLVE

$3,377

On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.

  • GEM 0.35%

    $7,126

  • QLVE 0.18%

    $3,749

$10,000
30 years

Cost over time

  • GEM 0.35%
  • QLVE 0.18%
  • Overpaying
One line per fund, from year 0 to year 30. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$2K$4K$6K$8K051015202530GEM $7,126QLVE $3,749

Year by year

YearGEMQLVEOverpaying
10$634$328$306
20$2,454$1,281$1,173
30$7,126$3,749$3,377

Expense ratio

  • 0.35%GEM
  • 0.18%QLVE, cheaper
  • Middle half of Emerging Markets Multifactor funds
  • Median 0.44%

QLVE cheapest of 20 funds

GEM 6th cheapest of 20 funds

GEM vs QLVE Dividends

Last 12 months to Oct 30, 2026
Yield (12M)
GEM 2.06%
QLVE 3.17%, better
Payout (12M)
GEM $0.96
QLVE $1.02
Last payment
GEM $0.96
QLVE $0.34
Ex-dividend
GEM Dec 23, 2025
QLVE Sep 18, 2026
Paid on
GEM Dec 30, 2025
QLVE Sep 24, 2026
Frequency
GEM Annual
QLVE Quarterly

Distribution history

Per share, 2017 to 2026, same scale for both

GEMAnnual · 28 paymentsAll GEM payments⁠
One bar per payment. 28 payments from 2017 to 2026 YTD. Mar 24, 2017 $0.03; Jun 23, 2017 $0.16; Sep 22, 2017 $0.24; Dec 21, 2017 $0.22; Mar 23, 2018 $0.04; Jun 25, 2018 $0.18; Sep 24, 2018 $0.27; Dec 24, 2018 $0.14; Mar 25, 2019 $0.19; Jun 24, 2019 $0.22; Sep 24, 2019 $0.32; Dec 24, 2019 $0.35; Jun 24, 2020 $0.14; Sep 24, 2020 $0.26; Dec 24, 2020 $0.22; Jun 24, 2021 $0.21; Sep 24, 2021 $0.70; Dec 27, 2021 $0.20; Mar 25, 2022 $0.23; Jun 24, 2022 $0.36; Sep 26, 2022 $0.18; Dec 27, 2022 $0.07; Mar 27, 2023 $0.34; Jun 26, 2023 $0.19; Sep 25, 2023 $0.21; Dec 26, 2023 $0.17; Dec 23, 2024 $0.82; Dec 23, 2025 $0.96. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$12017202020232026YTD
QLVEQuarterly · 26 paymentsAll QLVE payments⁠
One bar per payment. 26 payments from 2017 to 2026 YTD. Sep 20, 2019 $0.11; Dec 20, 2019 $0.23; Mar 20, 2020 $0.0066; Jun 19, 2020 $0.17; Sep 18, 2020 $0.24; Dec 18, 2020 $0.03; Jun 18, 2021 $0.18; Sep 17, 2021 $0.24; Dec 17, 2021 $0.25; Jun 17, 2022 $0.17; Sep 16, 2022 $0.32; Dec 16, 2022 $0.06; Mar 17, 2023 $0.06; Jun 16, 2023 $0.15; Sep 15, 2023 $0.40; Dec 15, 2023 $0.09; Jun 21, 2024 $0.16; Sep 20, 2024 $0.09; Dec 20, 2024 $0.52; Mar 21, 2025 $0.09; Jun 20, 2025 $0.20; Sep 19, 2025 $0.21; Dec 19, 2025 $0.43; Dec 24, 2025 $0.0056; Jun 18, 2026 $0.24; Sep 18, 2026 $0.34. Use the arrow keys to read each point.$0$12017202020232026YTD

GEM vs QLVE Risk

Fall from peak · 5 years

  • GEM
  • QLVE
Oct 29, 2021 to Oct 30, 2026. Worst fall: GEM −31.4% · Oct 2022. Use the arrow keys to read each point.−30%−20%−10%0%Oct 2021Apr 2024Oct 2026

Risk facts

VolatilityStd dev, 3 years
GEM 15.6%QLVE 11.0%, better
Return per unit of riskSharpe ratio, 3 years
GEM 1.02QLVE 1.11, better
Worst fallMax drawdown, 5 years
GEM −31.4%QLVE −23.6%, better
Market sensitivityBeta, 5 years
GEM 1.10QLVE 0.83

Popular comparisons

  • GEMBvsEMGFA

    Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF · iShares Emerging Markets Equity Factor ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.35% · 0.26%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • QLVEBvsEMGFA

    Northern Trust Emerging Markets Quality Low Volatility ETF · iShares Emerging Markets Equity Factor ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.18% · 0.26%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • GEMBvsAVESA

    Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF · Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.35% · 0.36%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • QLVEBvsAVESA

    Northern Trust Emerging Markets Quality Low Volatility ETF · Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.18% · 0.36%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • GEMBvsFDEMA

    Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF · Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.35% · 0.25%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
  • QLVEBvsFDEMA

    Northern Trust Emerging Markets Quality Low Volatility ETF · Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF

    Expense ratio
    0.18% · 0.25%
    Category
    Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.