EMSF vs. PCEM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) and PCEM (Polen Capital Emerging Markets ex-China Growth ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMSF charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for PCEM.

Performance

EMSF vs. PCEM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

EMSF

• 1D: -1.10%
• 1M: 8.61%
• YTD: 45.34%
• 6M: 40.08%
• 1Y: 63.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PCEM

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMSF vs. PCEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.34%	19.20%	-1.93%
PCEM Polen Capital Emerging Markets ex-China Growth ETF	6.00%	12.55%	0.32%

Correlation

The correlation between EMSF and PCEM is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 12, 2024	0.66

The correlation between EMSF and PCEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMSF vs. PCEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMSF	PCEM
Technology	43.6%	43.3%
Financial Services	16.6%	11.7%
Industrials	15.0%	13.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.7%	17.5%
Healthcare	6.8%	7.1%
Consumer Defensive	3.9%	2.5%
Utilities	2.8%	-
Communication Services	2.0%	5.0%
Real Estate	1.6%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-

Return for Risk

EMSF vs. PCEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 76
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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. PCEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and Polen Capital Emerging Markets ex-China Growth ETF (PCEM). 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	PCEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	—	—
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.14	—	—
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	—	—
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.37	—	—
Martin ratio Return 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMSF	PCEM	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	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSF	PCEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.57%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.10%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.72%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.35%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	EMSF	PCEM	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%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.75%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.75%	—	—

EMSF vs. PCEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than PCEM's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMSF vs. PCEM - Dividend Comparison

EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.30%, more than PCEM's 0.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.30%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
PCEM Polen Capital Emerging Markets ex-China Growth ETF	0.37%	0.40%	0.10%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMSF and PCEM in my portfolio?

EMSF and PCEM have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EMSF or PCEM?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMSF or PCEM?

EMSF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for PCEM.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 0.37% for PCEM.

What is the main difference between EMSF and PCEM?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Polen Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for EMSF and 1.00% for PCEM.