EMSF vs. MCHS

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS).

EMSF and MCHS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EMSF is an actively managed fund by Matthews. It was launched on Sep 21, 2023. MCHS is an actively managed fund by Matthews. It was launched on Jan 10, 2024.

Performance

EMSF vs. MCHS - Performance Comparison

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

EMSF vs. MCHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	9.54%	19.20%	-0.66%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	10.80%	31.19%	6.53%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMSF achieves a 9.54% return, which is significantly lower than MCHS's 10.80% return.

EMSF

• 1D: 4.37%
• 1M: -9.73%
• YTD: 9.54%
• 6M: 8.20%
• 1Y: 30.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MCHS

• 1D: -0.59%
• 1M: -10.87%
• YTD: 10.80%
• 6M: 7.16%
• 1Y: 32.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMSF vs. MCHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than MCHS's 0.89% expense ratio.

MCHS

Matthews China Discovery Active ETF

EMSF

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF

Return for Risk

EMSF vs. MCHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 69
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 65
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 68

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 72
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 72
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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. MCHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS). 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	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	1.27	-0.01
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	1.83	-0.09
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.27	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.05	2.03	+0.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.96	7.51	-0.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMSF vs. MCHS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMSF Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is comparable to the MCHS Sharpe Ratio of 1.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMSF and MCHS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMSF	MCHS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.26	1.27	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.49	0.79	-0.30

Correlation

The correlation between EMSF and MCHS is 0.66, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

EMSF vs. MCHS - Dividend Comparison

EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.72%, less than MCHS's 3.22% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.72%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	3.22%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%

Drawdowns

EMSF vs. MCHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMSF drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, roughly equal to the maximum MCHS drawdown of -23.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMSF and MCHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSF	MCHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-23.75%	-1.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.57%	-15.89%	+1.32%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.83%	-11.50%	+0.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.96%	-7.98%	+2.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.29%	4.30%	-0.01%

Volatility

EMSF vs. MCHS - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a higher volatility of 12.64% compared to Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) at 8.20%. This indicates that EMSF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MCHS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMSF	MCHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.64%	8.20%	+4.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.40%	15.15%	+4.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.55%	25.64%	-1.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.79%	27.86%	-6.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.79%	27.86%	-6.07%