EMDM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EMDM (First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. EMDM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, EMDM returned 66.00% vs 42.52% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.81 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMDM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

EMDM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM) 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, EMDM achieves a 27.86% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 30.73% return.

EMDM

• 1D: 0.46%
• 1M: -3.52%
• 6M: 13.18%
• YTD: 27.86%
• 1Y: 66.00%
• 3Y*: 26.67%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 26.46%

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

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	$660.85K	$757.43K	$571.79K
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	$80.02K	$93.23K	$184.42K

EMDM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	27.86%	59.68%	-4.93%	13.96%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between EMDM and EMSF is 0.89, 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.	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.81

The correlation between EMDM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMDM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMDM	EMSF
Technology	39.9%	52.8%
Financial Services	25.6%	15.0%
Basic Materials	12.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.3%	6.3%
Energy	4.8%	-
Communication Services	4.0%	1.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	3.6%
Industrials	2.6%	11.0%
Utilities	1.5%	2.1%
Healthcare	0.5%	6.0%
Real Estate	-	1.6%

Return for Risk

EMDM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMDM

EMDM Risk / Return Rank: 90
EMDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
EMDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
EMDM Omega Ratio Rank: 89
EMDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
EMDM Martin Ratio Rank: 89

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 57
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

EMDM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM) 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.

	EMDM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.38	1.36	+1.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.91	1.86	+1.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.25	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.23	2.10	+2.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.54	7.05	+6.49

EMDM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMDM Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is higher than the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMDM 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

EMDM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMDM drawdown since its inception was -18.81%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMDM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMDM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.81%	-24.75%	+5.94%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.65%	-19.49%	+3.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.81%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.88%	-15.62%	+4.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.20%	-5.91%	+1.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.88%	5.80%	-0.92%

Volatility

EMDM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM) is 9.95%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.79%. This indicates that EMDM 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

	EMDM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.95%	10.79%	-0.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.55%	26.54%	-0.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.87%	30.10%	-2.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.16%	24.40%	-3.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.16%	24.40%	-3.24%

EMDM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMDM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMDM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

EMDM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, more than EMSF's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	2.96%	3.57%	5.87%	2.16%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMDM and EMSF in my portfolio?

EMDM and EMSF have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMDM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to EMDM (9.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMDM dropped -18.81% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, EMDM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMDM leads with 66.00% vs 42.52% for EMSF. On fees, EMDM is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, EMDM has been the lower-risk option at 9.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMDM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMDM has performed better with a 66.00% return vs 42.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMDM or EMSF?

EMDM is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

EMDM has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between EMDM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMDM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.38 vs 1.36), 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.