Data as of Sep 12, 2026. Both funds on the fields they both publish, from the same sources.
EMXC vs SPLG: how they differ
EMXC and SPLG are both equity index funds, and over the year EMXC returned more, +55.5% against +17.6%.
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF and S&P 500, book from IVV.
| EMXC iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ex China ETF | SPLG S&P 500, book from IVV | |
|---|---|---|
| Where it sits | Core index fund | Core index fund |
| Issuer | iShares | S&P |
| What it is | MSCI Emerging Markets ex China | S&P 500, book from IVV |
| Total return, 1 year | +55.5% | +17.6% |
| S&P 500 over the same days | +17.5% | +17.5% |
| Gap to the S&P 500 | +38.0 pts | +0.1 pts |
| Expense ratio | 0.25% | not published |
| Holdings | 662 | not filed |
EMXC in plain words
EMXC is an index equity fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets ex China. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +55.5% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year. By its holdings filed for May 31, 2026, 0% of the fund by weight is stocks the S&P 500 also holds, across 662 positions, with the top ten at 44.3%. It sat 5.5% below its high of Jun 22, 2026 on Sep 11, 2026.
SPLG in plain words
SPLG is an index equity fund tracking the S&P 500. Over the year to Sep 11, 2026 it returned +17.6% with distributions reinvested, against +17.5% for the S&P 500 and +23.0% for the Nasdaq-100.
Questions people ask
- Which returned more over the last year, EMXC or SPLG?
- In the year to Sep 12, 2026, with distributions reinvested, EMXC returned +55.5% and SPLG returned +17.6%, so EMXC returned more. One year is one year; the longer windows are in the table.
Other comparisons
Where to next
Where these figures came from
ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure. It is not affiliated with any issuer, and a link is not an endorsement.
Cite this page. ETFIQ, EMXC against SPLG, data as of Sep 12, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/EMXC-SPLG Free to use with attribution; the underlying files are at Open data.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Standards and sources