EMSF vs. LLII
EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) and LLII (REX LLY Growth & Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMSF is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Matthews, while LLII is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by REX. Both are actively managed. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMSF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for LLII.
Performance
EMSF vs. LLII - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMSF achieves a 45.34% return, which is significantly higher than LLII's -4.28% return.
EMSF
- 1D
- -1.10%
- 1M
- 8.61%
- YTD
- 45.34%
- 6M
- 40.08%
- 1Y
- 63.33%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LLII
- 1D
- 1.47%
- 1M
- 9.79%
- YTD
- -4.28%
- 6M
- 0.70%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EMSF vs. LLII - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF | 45.34% | -6.84% |
LLII REX LLY Growth & Income ETF | -4.28% | 19.03% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMSF and LLII is 0.11, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 5, 2025 | 0.11 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
EMSF vs. LLII — Risk / Return Rank
EMSF
LLII
EMSF vs. LLII - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and REX LLY Growth & Income ETF (LLII). 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.
| EMSF | LLII | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 2.51 | — | — |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 3.14 | — | — |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.43 | — | — |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.37 | — | — |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 14.61 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| EMSF | LLII | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.51 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.98 | 0.71 | +0.27 |
Drawdowns
EMSF vs. LLII - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMSF drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, roughly equal to the maximum LLII drawdown of -23.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMSF and LLII.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMSF | LLII | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -24.75% | -23.96% | -0.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.57% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.10% | -6.88% | +5.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.72% | -9.28% | +3.56% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.35% | — | — |
Volatility
EMSF vs. LLII - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMSF | LLII | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.96% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.98% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.35% | 36.42% | -11.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.75% | 36.42% | -13.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.75% | 36.42% | -13.67% |
EMSF vs. LLII - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than LLII's 0.99% expense ratio.
Dividends
EMSF vs. LLII - Dividend Comparison
EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.30%, less than LLII's 25.95% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF | 1.30% | 1.88% | 3.29% | 0.02% |
LLII REX LLY Growth & Income ETF | 25.95% | 5.13% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMSF and LLII have a correlation of 0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EMSF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EMSF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LLII.
LLII has the higher dividend yield at 25.95%, compared with 1.30% for EMSF.
EMSF is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while LLII is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and REX. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for EMSF and 0.99% for LLII.
Find the right allocation for EMSF and LLII
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer