ASIA vs. ASEA

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

ASIA (Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF) and ASEA (Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. ASIA is actively managed, while ASEA is passively managed. Over the past year, ASIA returned 70.76% vs 30.97% for ASEA. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ASIA charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for ASEA.

Performance

ASIA vs. ASEA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF (ASEA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASIA achieves a 38.62% return, which is significantly higher than ASEA's 11.13% return.

ASIA

• 1D: 1.18%
• 1M: 10.36%
• YTD: 38.62%
• 6M: 40.85%
• 1Y: 70.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ASEA

• 1D: -0.35%
• 1M: 2.26%
• YTD: 11.13%
• 6M: 10.54%
• 1Y: 30.97%
• 3Y*: 15.76%
• 5Y*: 10.83%
• 10Y*: 7.90%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ASIA vs. ASEA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	38.62%	32.06%	3.41%	0.01%
ASEA Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF	11.13%	19.80%	9.82%	5.20%

Correlation

The correlation between ASIA and ASEA is 0.56, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.54

The correlation between ASIA and ASEA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

ASIA vs. ASEA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ASIA	ASEA
Technology	55.9%	-
Financial Services	14.6%	11.3%
Industrials	9.2%	6.3%
Consumer Cyclical	6.6%	0.9%
Communication Services	3.9%	4.0%
Energy	3.0%	3.2%
Healthcare	2.9%	1.0%
Real Estate	2.5%	2.8%
Basic Materials	1.4%	0.5%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	1.3%
Utilities	-	1.5%

Return for Risk

ASIA vs. ASEA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ASIA

ASIA Risk / Return Rank: 87
ASIA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ASIA Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
ASIA Omega Ratio Rank: 89
ASIA Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
ASIA Martin Ratio Rank: 86

ASEA

ASEA Risk / Return Rank: 69
ASEA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
ASEA Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
ASEA Omega Ratio Rank: 68
ASEA Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
ASEA Martin Ratio Rank: 59

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ASIA vs. ASEA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF (ASEA). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ASIA	ASEA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.92	2.18	+0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.48	3.13	+0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	1.39	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.91	3.76	+1.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.48	10.11	+7.37

ASIA vs. ASEA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASIA Sharpe Ratio is 2.92, which is higher than the ASEA Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASIA and ASEA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ASIA vs. ASEA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASIA drawdown since its inception was -23.95%, smaller than the maximum ASEA drawdown of -44.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASIA and ASEA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASIA	ASEA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.95%	-44.16%	+20.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.47%	-8.28%	-6.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.20%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-22.20%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.16%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.36%	+1.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.84%	-10.63%	+5.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.06%	3.07%	+0.99%

Volatility

ASIA vs. ASEA - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) has a higher volatility of 13.30% compared to Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF (ASEA) at 4.22%. This indicates that ASIA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ASEA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ASIA	ASEA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.30%	4.22%	+9.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.85%	11.49%	+10.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.41%	14.30%	+10.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.27%	14.72%	+6.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.27%	17.58%	+3.69%

ASIA vs. ASEA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASIA has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than ASEA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ASIA vs. ASEA - Dividend Comparison

ASIA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.75%, less than ASEA's 3.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ASEA Global X FTSE Southeast Asia ETF	3.55%	3.95%	3.61%	3.76%	2.23%	4.19%	2.27%	2.51%	3.08%	1.59%	2.78%	3.64%
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	0.75%	1.05%	0.58%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ASIA and ASEA in my portfolio?

ASIA and ASEA have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ASIA or ASEA?

ASIA has higher volatility (13.30%) compared to ASEA (4.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASIA dropped -23.95% vs ASEA's -44.16%.

Which ETF is better, ASIA or ASEA?

On 1-year performance, ASIA leads with 70.76% vs 30.97% for ASEA. On fees, ASEA is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, ASEA has been the lower-risk option at 4.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ASIA or ASEA?

Over the 1-year period, ASIA has performed better with a 70.76% return vs 30.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ASIA or ASEA?

ASEA is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for ASIA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ASIA or ASEA?

ASEA has the higher dividend yield at 3.55%, compared with 0.75% for ASIA.

What is the main difference between ASIA and ASEA?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ASIA and 0.65% for ASEA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ASIA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.92 vs 2.18), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.