DFEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

DFEM (Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, DFEM returned 32.35% vs 46.35% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.91 means they have usually moved in the same direction. 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 19.04% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 36.03% return.

DFEM

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: -3.05%
• 6M: 10.52%
• YTD: 19.04%
• 1Y: 32.35%
• 3Y*: 19.58%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.33%

EMSF

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: -6.06%
• 6M: 23.45%
• YTD: 36.03%
• 1Y: 46.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.46%

*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)
DFEM Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF	$42.91M	$40.55M	$40.33M
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	$230.48K	$162.40K	$179.77K

DFEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
DFEM Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF	19.04%	29.51%	7.53%	7.66%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	36.03%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between DFEM and EMSF is 0.95 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.91

The correlation between DFEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

DFEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DFEM	EMSF
Technology	40.4%	52.8%
Financial Services	14.8%	15.0%
Industrials	10.6%	11.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	6.3%
Basic Materials	7.3%	-
Communication Services	5.0%	1.7%
Healthcare	3.6%	6.0%
Energy	3.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	3.6%
Utilities	1.9%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.7%	1.6%

Return for Risk

DFEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

DFEM

DFEM Risk / Return Rank: 53
DFEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
DFEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
DFEM Omega Ratio Rank: 53
DFEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
DFEM Martin Ratio Rank: 56

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 56
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 54
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

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.

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.

	DFEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	1.54	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.95	2.05	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.28	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.35	2.39	-0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.59	7.79	-0.20

DFEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DFEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.54. 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.

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	-13.84%	-19.49%	+5.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.09%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.12%	-12.20%	+5.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.09%	-5.94%	+0.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.28%	5.97%	-1.69%

Volatility

DFEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF (DFEM) is 7.83%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.46%. 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	7.83%	10.46%	-2.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.72%	26.68%	-5.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.60%	30.20%	-7.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.20%	24.42%	-6.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.20%	24.42%	-6.22%

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 1.90%, more than EMSF's 1.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
DFEM Dimensional Emerging Markets Core Equity 2 ETF	1.90%	2.32%	2.50%	2.38%	1.99%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.38%	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 0.95, 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 (10.46%) compared to DFEM (7.83%). 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 46.35% vs 32.35% for DFEM. On fees, DFEM is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, DFEM has been the lower-risk option at 7.83%. 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 46.35% return vs 32.35%. 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 1.90%, compared with 1.38% 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?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs 1.44), 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.