EMM vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EMM (Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, EMM returned 55.00% vs 58.48% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

EMM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) 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, EMM achieves a 30.43% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 45.49% return.

EMM

• 1D: -5.60%
• 1M: 4.22%
• YTD: 30.43%
• 6M: 33.87%
• 1Y: 55.00%
• 3Y*: 21.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: -6.10%
• 1M: 5.39%
• YTD: 45.49%
• 6M: 45.93%
• 1Y: 58.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	30.43%	30.21%	2.34%	8.23%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.49%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between EMM and EMSF is 0.89, 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	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.82

The correlation between EMM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMM

EMM Risk / Return Rank: 76
EMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
EMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EMM Omega Ratio Rank: 76
EMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
EMM Martin Ratio Rank: 81

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 68
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

EMM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) 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.

	EMM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	2.08	+0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.87	2.62	+0.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.37	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.75	4.03	-0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.03	13.14	+1.89

EMM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMM Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMM 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

EMM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMM drawdown since its inception was -21.99%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.99%	-24.75%	+2.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.75%	-14.57%	-0.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.60%	-6.10%	+0.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.67%	-5.72%	+1.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.67%	4.46%	-0.79%

Volatility

EMM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (EMM) is 13.10%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 14.20%. This indicates that EMM 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

	EMM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.10%	14.20%	-1.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.46%	24.49%	-2.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.51%	28.21%	-3.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.83%	23.87%	-4.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.83%	23.87%	-4.04%

EMM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EMM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

EMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.69%, less than EMSF's 1.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMM Global X Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	0.69%	0.90%	0.80%	0.66%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.29%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMM and EMSF in my portfolio?

EMM 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, EMM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (14.20%) compared to EMM (13.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMM dropped -21.99% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, EMM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 58.48% vs 55.00% for EMM. On fees, EMM is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, EMM has been the lower-risk option at 13.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 58.48% return vs 55.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMM or EMSF?

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

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.29%, compared with 0.69% for EMM.

What is the main difference between EMM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.25 vs 2.08), 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.