BKEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

BKEM (BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. BKEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, BKEM returned 36.20% vs 44.16% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.90 means they have usually moved in the same direction. BKEM charges 0.11%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

BKEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BKEM achieves a 19.61% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 32.23% return.

BKEM

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -2.18%
• 6M: 9.90%
• YTD: 19.61%
• 1Y: 36.20%
• 3Y*: 19.15%
• 5Y*: 6.90%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.53%

EMSF

• 1D: 1.15%
• 1M: -7.30%
• 6M: 18.36%
• YTD: 32.23%
• 1Y: 44.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.34%

*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)
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$481.37K	$317.95K	$245.58K
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	$153.53K	$123.94K	$184.31K

BKEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	19.61%	30.55%	7.53%	7.04%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	32.23%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between BKEM and EMSF is 0.93, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.90

The correlation between BKEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

BKEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BKEM	EMSF
Technology	44.5%	52.8%
Financial Services	17.5%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.7%	6.3%
Industrials	7.6%	11.0%
Communication Services	5.8%	1.7%
Basic Materials	5.4%	-
Energy	3.1%	-
Healthcare	2.7%	6.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	3.6%
Utilities	2.0%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.1%	1.6%

Return for Risk

BKEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

BKEM

BKEM Risk / Return Rank: 64
BKEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BKEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
BKEM Omega Ratio Rank: 64
BKEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
BKEM Martin Ratio Rank: 64

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 58
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 60

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

BKEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) 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.

	BKEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	1.48	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	1.98	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.27	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	2.28	+0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.01	7.54	+0.47

BKEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BKEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BKEM and EMSF, 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

BKEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BKEM drawdown since its inception was -39.48%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BKEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	BKEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.48%	-24.75%	-14.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.91%	-19.49%	+5.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.38%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.28%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.43%	-14.65%	+5.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.75%	-5.92%	-9.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.53%	5.87%	-1.34%

Volatility

BKEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) is 9.11%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.75%. This indicates that BKEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BKEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.11%	10.75%	-1.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.78%	26.52%	-4.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.88%	30.13%	-6.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.61%	24.39%	-4.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.75%	24.39%	-4.64%

BKEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

BKEM has a 0.11% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

BKEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

BKEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%, more than EMSF's 1.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.96%	2.25%	2.76%	3.02%	3.15%	2.22%	1.78%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.42%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BKEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, BKEM 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 is riskier, BKEM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.75%) compared to BKEM (9.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BKEM dropped -39.48% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, BKEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 44.16% vs 36.20% for BKEM. On fees, BKEM is cheaper at 0.11% per year. On volatility, BKEM has been the lower-risk option at 9.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BKEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 44.16% return vs 36.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BKEM or EMSF?

BKEM is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

BKEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.96%, compared with 1.42% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between BKEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: BNY Mellon and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.11% for BKEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BKEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs 1.48), 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.