DFEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

DFEM (Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DFEM returned 50.40% vs 63.33% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. DFEM charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

DFEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) 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, DFEM achieves a 25.59% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 45.34% return.

DFEM

• 1D: -1.28%
• 1M: 6.85%
• YTD: 25.59%
• 6M: 27.96%
• 1Y: 50.40%
• 3Y*: 23.24%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: -1.10%
• 1M: 8.61%
• YTD: 45.34%
• 6M: 40.08%
• 1Y: 63.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

DFEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DFEM Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF	25.59%	29.51%	7.53%	6.66%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.34%	19.20%	-3.09%	1.88%

Correlation

The correlation between DFEM and EMSF is 0.94, 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	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2023	0.91

The correlation between DFEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

DFEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFEM	EMSF
Technology	32.9%	43.6%
Financial Services	15.4%	16.6%
Industrials	11.9%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	7.7%
Basic Materials	8.4%	-
Communication Services	5.5%	2.0%
Energy	4.4%	-
Healthcare	3.8%	6.8%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	3.9%
Utilities	2.2%	2.8%
Real Estate	2.0%	1.6%

Return for Risk

DFEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFEM

DFEM Risk / Return Rank: 81
DFEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
DFEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
DFEM Omega Ratio Rank: 82
DFEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
DFEM Martin Ratio Rank: 81

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 76
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

DFEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) 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.

	DFEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	2.51	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.54	3.14	+0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.43	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.18	4.37	-0.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.33	14.61	+1.72
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

DFEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DFEM 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	DFEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	2.51	+0.23
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	0.98	-0.06

Drawdowns

DFEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DFEM drawdown since its inception was -20.82%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DFEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	DFEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.82%	-24.75%	+3.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.12%	-14.57%	+2.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.09%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.28%	-1.10%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.03%	-5.72%	+0.69%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.09%	4.35%	-1.26%

Volatility

DFEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) is 7.78%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 9.96%. This indicates that DFEM 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

	DFEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.78%	9.96%	-2.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.02%	21.98%	-5.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.45%	25.35%	-6.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.26%	22.75%	-5.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.26%	22.75%	-5.49%

DFEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

DFEM has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

DFEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

DFEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.82%, more than EMSF's 1.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
DFEM Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF	1.82%	2.32%	2.50%	2.38%	1.99%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.30%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both DFEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, DFEM 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, DFEM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (9.96%) compared to DFEM (7.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DFEM dropped -20.82% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, DFEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 63.33% vs 50.40% for DFEM. On fees, DFEM is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, DFEM has been the lower-risk option at 7.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, DFEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 63.33% return vs 50.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, DFEM or EMSF?

DFEM is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

DFEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.82%, compared with 1.30% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between DFEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Dimensional and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for DFEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DFEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 2.51), 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.