ASIA vs. MEM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ASIA (Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF) and MEM (Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ASIA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by Matthews, while MEM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Matthews. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ASIA returned 66.09% vs 54.36% for MEM. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

ASIA vs. MEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASIA achieves a 33.47% return, which is significantly higher than MEM's 28.39% return.

ASIA

• 1D: -1.35%
• 1M: 11.70%
• YTD: 33.47%
• 6M: 38.00%
• 1Y: 66.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MEM

• 1D: -1.34%
• 1M: 8.03%
• YTD: 28.39%
• 6M: 30.14%
• 1Y: 54.36%
• 3Y*: 23.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ASIA vs. MEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	33.47%	32.06%	3.41%	0.01%
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	28.39%	28.31%	10.11%	6.44%

Correlation

The correlation between ASIA and MEM is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2023	0.92

The correlation between ASIA and MEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

ASIA vs. MEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ASIA	MEM
Technology	46.6%	37.5%
Financial Services	17.6%	24.6%
Industrials	11.6%	8.9%
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	9.1%
Communication Services	5.1%	5.6%
Healthcare	4.0%	0.8%
Real Estate	2.9%	1.6%
Basic Materials	2.5%	9.2%
Energy	2.1%	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	1.4%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ASIA vs. MEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASIA

ASIA Risk / Return Rank: 86
ASIA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
ASIA Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
ASIA Omega Ratio Rank: 88
ASIA Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
ASIA Martin Ratio Rank: 83

MEM

MEM Risk / Return Rank: 77
MEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
MEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
MEM Omega Ratio Rank: 78
MEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
MEM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. MEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM). 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.

	ASIA	MEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.08	2.65	+0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	3.47	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.47	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.59	3.74	+0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.09	13.64	+3.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ASIA vs. MEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASIA Sharpe Ratio is 3.08, which is comparable to the MEM Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASIA and MEM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ASIA	MEM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.08	2.65	+0.44
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.24	1.14	+0.10

Drawdowns

ASIA vs. MEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASIA drawdown since its inception was -23.95%, which is greater than MEM's maximum drawdown of -19.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASIA and MEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASIA	MEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.95%	-19.10%	-4.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.47%	-14.62%	+0.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.10%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.35%	-1.34%	-0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.85%	-4.74%	-0.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.88%	4.00%	-0.12%

Volatility

ASIA vs. MEM - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) has a higher volatility of 9.93% compared to Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) at 8.97%. This indicates that ASIA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ASIA	MEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.93%	8.97%	+0.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.57%	17.95%	+0.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.56%	20.65%	+0.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.24%	18.31%	+1.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.24%	18.31%	+1.93%

ASIA vs. MEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both ASIA and MEM have an expense ratio of 0.79%.

Dividends

ASIA vs. MEM - Dividend Comparison

ASIA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, less than MEM's 2.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	0.78%	1.05%	0.58%	0.12%	0.00%
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	2.77%	3.56%	7.81%	0.01%	0.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ASIA and MEM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, ASIA and MEM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, ASIA or MEM?

ASIA has higher volatility (9.93%) compared to MEM (8.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASIA dropped -23.95% vs MEM's -19.10%.

Which ETF is better, ASIA or MEM?

On 1-year performance, ASIA leads with 66.09% vs 54.36% for MEM. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, MEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ASIA or MEM?

Over the 1-year period, ASIA has performed better with a 66.09% return vs 54.36%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ASIA or MEM?

ASIA and MEM have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.

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

MEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.77%, compared with 0.78% for ASIA.

What is the main difference between ASIA and MEM?

ASIA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while MEM is Emerging Markets Diversified.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ASIA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.08 vs 2.65), 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.