PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMCR vs. EMSF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMCR vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers Emerging Markets Carbon Reduction and Climate Improvers ETF (EMCR) and Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMCR achieves a 14.41% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 30.73% return.


EMCR

1D
0.75%
1M
-2.20%
6M
6.42%
YTD
14.41%
1Y
31.50%
3Y*
18.44%
5Y*
8.04%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
10.51%

EMSF

1D
0.83%
1M
-8.36%
6M
17.49%
YTD
30.73%
1Y
42.52%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
15.92%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$92.23K$131.48K$133.87K
$80.02K$93.23K$184.42K

EMCR vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between EMCR and EMSF is 0.94, 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.

0.94

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023

0.90

The correlation between EMCR and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMCR vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EMCR
EMSF

Technology

39.3%
52.8%

Financial Services

20.8%
15.0%

Communication Services

8.9%
1.7%

Consumer Cyclical

8.6%
6.3%

Healthcare

5.2%
6.0%

Industrials

4.9%
11.0%

Basic Materials

3.3%

-

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
3.6%

Real Estate

1.5%
1.6%

Utilities

1.4%
2.1%

Energy

0.0%

-

Technology

EMCR
39.3%
EMSF
52.8%

Financial Services

EMCR
20.8%
EMSF
15.0%

Communication Services

EMCR
8.9%
EMSF
1.7%

Consumer Cyclical

EMCR
8.6%
EMSF
6.3%

Healthcare

EMCR
5.2%
EMSF
6.0%

Industrials

EMCR
4.9%
EMSF
11.0%

Basic Materials

EMCR
3.3%
EMSF

-

Consumer Defensive

EMCR
2.6%
EMSF
3.6%

Real Estate

EMCR
1.5%
EMSF
1.6%

Utilities

EMCR
1.4%
EMSF
2.1%

Energy

EMCR
0.0%
EMSF

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

EMCR vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMCR
EMCR Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
EMCR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMCR Sortino Ratio Rank: 5050
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMCR Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
EMCR Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMCR Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank

EMSF
EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EMCR vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Emerging Markets Carbon Reduction and Climate Improvers ETF (EMCR) 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.


EMCREMSFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.06

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.25

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.20

2.10

+0.10

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.82

7.05

-0.23

EMCR vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMCR Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMCR 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

EMCR vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMCR drawdown since its inception was -34.28%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMCR and EMSF.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMCREMSFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.28%

-24.75%

-9.53%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.84%

-19.49%

+5.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.38%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.28%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.68%

-15.62%

+6.94%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.26%

-5.91%

-3.35%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.46%

5.80%

-1.34%

Volatility

EMCR vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Emerging Markets Carbon Reduction and Climate Improvers ETF (EMCR) is 8.48%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.79%. This indicates that EMCR 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMCREMSFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.48%

10.79%

-2.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.25%

26.54%

-5.29%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.47%

30.10%

-6.63%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.12%

24.40%

-4.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.27%

24.40%

-4.13%

EMCR vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMCR has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMCR vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

EMCR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, more than EMSF's 1.44% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
EMCR
Xtrackers Emerging Markets Carbon Reduction and Climate Improvers ETF
1.53%2.43%6.62%1.95%3.05%1.83%1.75%3.15%0.19%
EMSF
Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF
1.44%1.88%3.29%0.02%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.94, EMCR 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.

EMSF has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to EMCR (8.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMCR dropped -34.28% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 42.52% vs 31.50% for EMCR. On fees, EMCR is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, EMCR has been the lower-risk option at 8.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 42.52% return vs 31.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EMCR is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

EMCR has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.

They also come from different issuers: Deutsche Bank and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for EMCR and 0.79% for EMSF.

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 1.30), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMCR and EMSF

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer