Mackenzie Emerging Competition
| QEBH Etf | CAD 80.02 -0.28 -0.35% |
Mackenzie Emerging and Global X Correlation Snapshot
Poor diversification
The correlation between QEBH and BKCC is 0.76, which Macroaxis classifies as Poor diversification for the selected horizon. In portfolio terms, the overlap visualization shows how much shared movement remains after both positions are combined.
Moving together with Mackenzie Etf
Moving against Mackenzie Etf
Investors who believe in mean reversion view Mackenzie Emerging's price extremes not as permanent states but as temporary dislocations that create opportunities for disciplined, contrarian capital allocation.
Mackenzie Emerging Competition Correlation Matrix
Correlation analysis between Mackenzie Emerging Markets and its competitors helps investors understand whether diversification is real or only superficial inside the same peer group. This matrix is most informative when investors want to know whether adding another peer would improve diversification, increase crowding, or leave total risk largely unchanged.
Mackenzie Emerging Constituents Risk-Adjusted Indicators
There is a big difference between Mackenzie Etf performing well and Mackenzie Emerging ETF doing well as a business compared to the competition. There are so many exceptions to the norm that investors cannot definitively determine what's good or bad unless they analyze Mackenzie Emerging's multiple risk-adjusted performance indicators across the competitive landscape. These indicators are quantitative in nature and help investors forecast volatility and risk-adjusted expected returns across various positions.| Mean Deviation | Jensen Alpha | Sortino Ratio | Treynor Ratio | Semi Deviation | Expected Shortfall | Potential Upside | Value @Risk | Maximum Drawdown | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| XRB | 0.29 | -0.01 | 0.00 | -0.12 | 0.00 | 0.53 | 1.76 | |||
| XIG | 0.20 | -0.01 | 0.00 | -0.13 | 0.00 | 0.50 | 1.67 | |||
| CUD | 0.55 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.87 | 1.43 | 6.13 | |||
| XDSR | 0.65 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.96 | 1.24 | 4.81 | |||
| HFIN | 0.76 | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.95 | 1.68 | 4.79 | |||
| XEH | 0.51 | 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.71 | 0.91 | 3.75 | |||
| XBM | 1.83 | 0.34 | 0.12 | 0.26 | 2.47 | 3.60 | 12.32 | |||
| ZGD | 2.14 | 0.48 | 0.11 | 0.34 | 3.46 | 4.69 | 15.85 | |||
| CGR | 0.54 | 0.07 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.68 | 1.18 | 3.39 | |||
| BKCC | 0.55 | 0.09 | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.60 | 1.00 | 3.84 |
Mackenzie Emerging Competitive Analysis
Investors tracking Mackenzie Emerging should compare Mackenzie Emerging's financial results to its peer group to contextualize performance. A company that consistently outperforms Mackenzie Emerging's competitors on margin and growth metrics is typically a stronger long-term hold.| Better Than Average | Worse Than Peers | View Performance Chart |
Mackenzie Emerging Peer Performance Charts
How to Analyze Mackenzie Emerging Against Peers
Mackenzie Emerging's peer analysis compares Mackenzie Emerging with related companies to put valuation, quality, and risk metrics in context. This helps determine whether recent performance is company-specific or broadly sector-driven. A practical workflow includes:- Set a relevant peer group: Include direct competitors and close alternatives with comparable business exposure.
- Benchmark core financials: Compare profitability, growth, capital structure, and cash flow quality.
- Check valuation dispersion: Review whether Mackenzie Emerging trades at a premium or discount versus peers and why.
- Evaluate risk profile: Compare volatility, drawdowns, and correlation to avoid false diversification assumptions.
- Document the thesis: Record where Mackenzie Emerging leads or lags and what catalysts could close or widen the gap.