EEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EEM (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. EEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, EEM returned 55.80% vs 63.33% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EEM charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

EEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) 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, EEM achieves a 27.80% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 45.34% return.

EEM

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: 9.08%
• YTD: 27.80%
• 6M: 30.51%
• 1Y: 55.80%
• 3Y*: 23.95%
• 5Y*: 7.01%
• 10Y*: 9.93%

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)

EEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF	27.80%	33.98%	6.49%	6.50%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.34%	19.20%	-3.09%	1.88%

Correlation

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

EEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EEM	EMSF
Technology	43.6%	43.6%
Financial Services	17.5%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	8.1%	7.7%
Industrials	6.2%	15.0%
Basic Materials	6.1%	-
Communication Services	5.7%	2.0%
Energy	3.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	3.9%
Healthcare	2.5%	6.8%
Utilities	2.0%	2.8%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.6%

Return for Risk

EEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEM

EEM Risk / Return Rank: 81
EEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
EEM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
EEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
EEM Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

EEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) 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.

	EEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.81	2.51	+0.30
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.62	3.14	+0.48
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.43	+0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.15	4.37	-0.22
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.99	14.61	+1.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.81, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEM 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

	EEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.81	2.51	+0.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.37	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	0.98	-0.60

Drawdowns

EEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEM drawdown since its inception was -66.43%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-66.43%	-24.75%	-41.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.52%	-14.57%	+1.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-37.71%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.24%	-1.10%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.02%	-5.72%	-10.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.50%	4.35%	-0.85%

Volatility

EEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF (EEM) is 8.52%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 9.96%. This indicates that EEM 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

	EEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.52%	9.96%	-1.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.42%	21.98%	-4.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.97%	25.35%	-5.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.91%	22.75%	-3.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.50%	22.75%	-2.25%

EEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEM has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

EEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.74%, more than EMSF's 1.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEM iShares MSCI Emerging Markets ETF	1.74%	2.22%	2.43%	2.63%	2.50%	1.99%	1.45%	2.76%	2.24%	1.89%	1.89%	2.49%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.30%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

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

EMSF has higher volatility (9.96%) compared to EEM (8.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEM dropped -66.43% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, EEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 63.33% vs 55.80% for EEM. On fees, EEM is cheaper at 0.72% per year. On volatility, EEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 63.33% return vs 55.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEM or EMSF?

EEM is cheaper with a 0.72% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

EEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.74%, compared with 1.30% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between EEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for EEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.81 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.