EMOP vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EMOP (AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, EMOP returned 38.67% vs 42.52% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.90 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMOP charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

EMOP vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) 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, EMOP achieves a 21.20% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 30.73% return.

EMOP

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -3.09%
• 6M: 9.87%
• YTD: 21.20%
• 1Y: 38.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 36.16%

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)
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	$2.89M	$2.64M	$4.99M
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	$80.02K	$93.23K	$184.42K

EMOP vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	21.20%	16.48%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	9.11%

Correlation

The correlation between EMOP and EMSF is 0.91, 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.	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 18, 2025	0.90

The correlation between EMOP and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMOP vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMOP	EMSF
Technology	37.8%	52.8%
Financial Services	18.5%	15.0%
Consumer Defensive	8.7%	3.6%
Energy	8.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.1%	6.3%
Industrials	6.8%	11.0%
Communication Services	4.2%	1.7%
Healthcare	3.4%	6.0%
Utilities	2.8%	2.1%
Real Estate	2.7%	1.6%
Basic Materials	1.6%	-

Return for Risk

EMOP vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMOP

EMOP Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMOP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
EMOP Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
EMOP Omega Ratio Rank: 70
EMOP Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
EMOP Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

EMOP vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) 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.

	EMOP	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	1.36	+0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	1.86	+0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.25	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.86	2.10	+0.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.90	7.05	+1.85

EMOP vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMOP Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMOP 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

EMOP vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMOP drawdown since its inception was -13.05%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMOP and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMOP	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.05%	-24.75%	+11.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.05%	-19.49%	+6.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.28%	-15.62%	+6.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.47%	-5.91%	+3.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.18%	5.80%	-1.62%

Volatility

EMOP vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF (EMOP) is 9.10%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.79%. This indicates that EMOP 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

	EMOP	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.10%	10.79%	-1.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.10%	26.54%	-5.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.30%	30.10%	-6.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.38%	24.40%	-2.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.38%	24.40%	-2.02%

EMOP vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMOP has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMOP vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

EMOP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than EMSF's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMOP AB Emerging Markets Opportunities ETF	1.22%	0.27%	0.00%	0.00%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMOP and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, EMOP 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, EMOP or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to EMOP (9.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMOP dropped -13.05% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, EMOP or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 42.52% vs 38.67% for EMOP. On fees, EMOP is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, EMOP has been the lower-risk option at 9.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMOP or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 42.52% return vs 38.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMOP or EMSF?

EMOP is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 1.22% for EMOP.

What is the main difference between EMOP and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: AllianceBernstein and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for EMOP and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMOP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 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.