BCEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Jul 28, 2026

BCEM (Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Their correlation of 0.95 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BCEM charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

BCEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF (BCEM) and Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

BCEM

• 1D: 0.57%
• 1M: -5.36%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

EMSF

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: -10.22%
• 6M: 19.89%
• YTD: 30.77%
• 1Y: 36.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.00%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BCEM Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF	$108.38K	$126.63K	$170.35K
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	$90.31K	$100.13K	$189.14K

BCEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
BCEM Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF	3.19%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	10.31%

Correlation

The correlation between BCEM and EMSF is 0.95, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 9, 2026	0.95

Return for Risk

BCEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCEM

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 55
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 53
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

BCEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF (BCEM) and Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF). 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.

	BCEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.24	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.72	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.23	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.34	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	6.80	—

Drawdowns

BCEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCEM drawdown since its inception was -12.06%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.06%	-24.75%	+12.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-15.66%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.92%	-15.60%	+4.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.88%	-5.85%	+1.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.40%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	BCEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	10.11%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	26.15%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.58%	29.76%	+2.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.58%	24.27%	+8.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.58%	24.27%	+8.31%

BCEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCEM has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

BCEM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BCEM Baron Emerging Markets Select ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, BCEM and EMSF 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 ETF is better, BCEM or EMSF?

On fees, EMSF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCEM or EMSF?

EMSF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for BCEM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BCEM or EMSF?

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 0.00% for BCEM.

What is the main difference between BCEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Baron Capital and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for BCEM and 0.79% for EMSF.