EMES vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMES (Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, EMES returned 46.81% vs 63.33% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMES charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

EMES vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) 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, EMES achieves a 28.30% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 45.34% return.

EMES

• 1D: -1.25%
• 1M: 5.92%
• YTD: 28.30%
• 6M: 29.99%
• 1Y: 46.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

EMES vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	28.30%	12.63%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.34%	12.31%

Correlation

The correlation between EMES and EMSF is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 16, 2025	0.93

The correlation between EMES and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMES vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMES	EMSF
Technology	42.9%	43.6%
Industrials	16.3%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	14.8%	7.7%
Financial Services	14.2%	16.6%
Communication Services	4.7%	2.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	3.9%
Real Estate	3.0%	1.6%
Healthcare	1.1%	6.8%
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-
Utilities	-	2.8%

Return for Risk

EMES vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMES

EMES Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMES Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
EMES Omega Ratio Rank: 70
EMES Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
EMES Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

EMES vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) 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.

	EMES	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.25	2.51	-0.26
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.98	3.14	-0.16
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.43	-0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.62	4.37	-0.75
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	14.07	14.61	-0.55
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMES vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMES Sharpe Ratio is 2.25, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMES 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

	EMES	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.25	2.51	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.06	0.98	+1.08

Drawdowns

EMES vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMES drawdown since its inception was -12.98%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMES and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMES	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.98%	-24.75%	+11.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.98%	-14.57%	+1.59%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-1.10%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.07%	-5.72%	+3.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.34%	4.35%	-1.01%

Volatility

EMES vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF (EMES) is 8.70%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 9.96%. This indicates that EMES 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

	EMES	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.70%	9.96%	-1.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.31%	21.98%	-3.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.89%	25.35%	-4.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.56%	22.75%	-2.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.56%	22.75%	-2.19%

EMES vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMES has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMES vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

EMES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%, less than EMSF's 1.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMES Harbor Emerging Markets Select ETF	0.42%	0.53%	0.00%	0.00%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.30%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMES and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, EMES 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, EMES or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (9.96%) compared to EMES (8.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMES dropped -12.98% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, EMES or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 63.33% vs 46.81% for EMES. On fees, EMES is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, EMES has been the lower-risk option at 8.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMES or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 63.33% return vs 46.81%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMES or EMSF?

EMES is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 0.42% for EMES.

What is the main difference between EMES and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Harbor and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EMES and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 2.25), 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.