EMSF vs. CGNG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) and CGNG (Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, EMSF returned 58.48% vs 32.44% for CGNG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMSF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.64%/yr for CGNG.

Performance

EMSF vs. CGNG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMSF achieves a 45.49% return, which is significantly higher than CGNG's 14.12% return.

EMSF

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

CGNG

• 1D: -4.38%
• 1M: 2.47%
• YTD: 14.12%
• 6M: 13.97%
• 1Y: 32.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMSF vs. CGNG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.49%	19.20%	-5.30%
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	14.12%	29.78%	-1.17%

Correlation

The correlation between EMSF and CGNG is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.89

The correlation between EMSF and CGNG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMSF vs. CGNG — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

CGNG

CGNG Risk / Return Rank: 52
CGNG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
CGNG Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
CGNG Omega Ratio Rank: 52
CGNG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CGNG Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

EMSF vs. CGNG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG). 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.

	EMSF	CGNG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	1.61	+0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	2.21	+0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.31	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.03	2.37	+1.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.14	9.67	+3.47

EMSF vs. CGNG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMSF Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the CGNG Sharpe Ratio of 1.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMSF and CGNG, 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

EMSF vs. CGNG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMSF drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, which is greater than CGNG's maximum drawdown of -15.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMSF and CGNG.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSF	CGNG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-15.90%	-8.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.57%	-13.75%	-0.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.10%	-4.38%	-1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.72%	-2.84%	-2.88%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.46%	3.36%	+1.10%

Volatility

EMSF vs. CGNG - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a higher volatility of 14.20% compared to Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF (CGNG) at 10.59%. This indicates that EMSF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CGNG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMSF	CGNG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.20%	10.59%	+3.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.49%	18.29%	+6.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.21%	20.31%	+7.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.87%	19.18%	+4.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.87%	19.18%	+4.69%

EMSF vs. CGNG - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than CGNG's 0.64% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMSF vs. CGNG - Dividend Comparison

EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.29%, more than CGNG's 0.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CGNG Capital Group New Geography Equity ETF	0.60%	0.68%	0.27%	0.00%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.29%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMSF and CGNG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, EMSF and CGNG 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, EMSF or CGNG?

EMSF has higher volatility (14.20%) compared to CGNG (10.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMSF dropped -24.75% vs CGNG's -15.90%.

Which ETF is better, EMSF or CGNG?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 58.48% vs 32.44% for CGNG. On fees, CGNG is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, CGNG has been the lower-risk option at 10.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMSF or CGNG?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 58.48% return vs 32.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMSF or CGNG?

CGNG is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.29%, compared with 0.60% for CGNG.

What is the main difference between EMSF and CGNG?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Capital Group. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for EMSF and 0.64% for CGNG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.61), 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.