CGNG vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CGNG (Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CGNG returned 32.44% vs 58.48% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGNG charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

CGNG vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) 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, CGNG achieves a 14.12% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 45.49% return.

CGNG

• 1D: -4.38%
• 1M: 2.47%
• YTD: 14.12%
• 6M: 13.97%
• 1Y: 32.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: -6.10%
• 1M: 5.39%
• YTD: 45.49%
• 6M: 45.93%
• 1Y: 58.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGNG vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	14.12%	29.78%	-1.17%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.49%	19.20%	-5.30%

Correlation

The correlation between CGNG and EMSF is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.89

The correlation between CGNG and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CGNG vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGNG

CGNG Risk / Return Rank: 52
CGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
CGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
CGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 52
CGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 58

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 68
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

CGNG vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) 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.

	CGNG	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	2.08	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.21	2.62	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.37	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.37	4.03	-1.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.67	13.14	-3.47

CGNG vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGNG Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGNG 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

CGNG vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGNG drawdown since its inception was -15.90%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGNG and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGNG	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.90%	-24.75%	+8.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.75%	-14.57%	+0.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.38%	-6.10%	+1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.84%	-5.72%	+2.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.36%	4.46%	-1.10%

Volatility

CGNG vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) is 10.59%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 14.20%. This indicates that CGNG 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

	CGNG	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.59%	14.20%	-3.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.29%	24.49%	-6.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.31%	28.21%	-7.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.18%	23.87%	-4.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.18%	23.87%	-4.69%

CGNG vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGNG has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGNG vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

CGNG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, less than EMSF's 1.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	0.60%	0.68%	0.27%	0.00%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.29%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGNG and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, CGNG 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, CGNG or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (14.20%) compared to CGNG (10.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGNG dropped -15.90% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, CGNG or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 58.48% vs 32.44% for CGNG. On fees, CGNG is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, CGNG has been the lower-risk option at 10.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGNG or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 58.48% return vs 32.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGNG or EMSF?

CGNG is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.29%, compared with 0.60% for CGNG.

What is the main difference between CGNG and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for CGNG and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.61), 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.