EMSF vs. FRDM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) and FRDM (Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. EMSF is actively managed, while FRDM is passively managed. Over the past year, EMSF returned 42.52% vs 65.50% for FRDM. Their 0.79 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. EMSF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for FRDM.

Performance

EMSF vs. FRDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMSF achieves a 30.73% return, which is significantly higher than FRDM's 28.12% return.

EMSF

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: -8.36%
• 6M: 17.49%
• YTD: 30.73%
• 1Y: 42.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.92%

FRDM

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: -4.87%
• 6M: 13.53%
• YTD: 28.12%
• 1Y: 65.50%
• 3Y*: 29.15%
• 5Y*: 17.22%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.90%

*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)
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	$80.02K	$93.23K	$184.42K
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	$22.77M	$21.45M	$25.02M

EMSF vs. FRDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	28.12%	61.27%	1.70%	15.56%

Correlation

The correlation between EMSF and FRDM is 0.90, 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.	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.79

The correlation between EMSF and FRDM shifts across timeframes, from 0.79 (all time) to 0.90 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EMSF vs. FRDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMSF	FRDM
Technology	52.8%	8.5%
Financial Services	15.0%	15.3%
Industrials	11.0%	0.3%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	3.6%
Healthcare	6.0%	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.6%	0.9%
Utilities	2.1%	1.2%
Communication Services	1.7%	0.3%
Real Estate	1.6%	2.3%
Basic Materials	-	3.4%
Energy	-	1.7%

Return for Risk

EMSF vs. FRDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

FRDM

FRDM Risk / Return Rank: 85
FRDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
FRDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
FRDM Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FRDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FRDM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

EMSF vs. FRDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM). 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	FRDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	2.13	-0.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	2.63	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.37	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.10	3.39	-1.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.05	11.29	-4.24

EMSF vs. FRDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMSF Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the FRDM Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMSF and FRDM, 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. FRDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMSF drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, smaller than the maximum FRDM drawdown of -40.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMSF and FRDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSF	FRDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-40.49%	+15.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.49%	-19.24%	-0.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.24%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.25%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.62%	-14.15%	-1.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.91%	-7.13%	+1.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.80%	5.77%	+0.03%

Volatility

EMSF vs. FRDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) is 10.79%, while Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) has a volatility of 12.28%. This indicates that EMSF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FRDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMSF	FRDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.79%	12.28%	-1.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.54%	28.47%	-1.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.10%	30.66%	-0.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.40%	22.38%	+2.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.40%	23.62%	+0.78%

EMSF vs. FRDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than FRDM's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMSF vs. FRDM - Dividend Comparison

EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, less than FRDM's 1.69% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	1.69%	2.26%	2.53%	2.66%	2.72%	2.17%	1.11%	1.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMSF and FRDM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, EMSF and FRDM 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 FRDM?

FRDM has higher volatility (12.28%) compared to EMSF (10.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMSF dropped -24.75% vs FRDM's -40.49%.

Which ETF is better, EMSF or FRDM?

On 1-year performance, FRDM leads with 65.50% vs 42.52% for EMSF. On fees, FRDM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EMSF has been the lower-risk option at 10.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMSF or FRDM?

Over the 1-year period, FRDM has performed better with a 65.50% return vs 42.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMSF or FRDM?

FRDM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

FRDM has the higher dividend yield at 1.69%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between EMSF and FRDM?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Freedom Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for EMSF and 0.49% for FRDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 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.