EMSF vs. PPEM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) and PPEM (Putnam Panagora ESG Emerging Markets Equity ETF -) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. EMSF is actively managed, while PPEM is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.82 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMSF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for PPEM.

Performance

EMSF vs. PPEM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

EMSF

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

PPEM

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

*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

EMSF vs. PPEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%
PPEM Putnam Panagora ESG Emerging Markets Equity ETF -	31.88%	35.39%	7.50%	7.92%

Correlation

The correlation between EMSF and PPEM is 0.78, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.82

The correlation between EMSF and PPEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMSF vs. PPEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMSF	PPEM
Technology	52.8%	50.9%
Financial Services	15.0%	16.8%
Industrials	11.0%	3.2%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	7.7%
Healthcare	6.0%	2.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.6%	1.0%
Utilities	2.1%	2.4%
Communication Services	1.7%	8.0%
Real Estate	1.6%	1.5%
Basic Materials	-	3.6%
Energy	-	2.5%

Return for Risk

EMSF vs. PPEM — 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

PPEM

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. PPEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and Putnam Panagora ESG Emerging Markets Equity ETF - (PPEM). 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	PPEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.10	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.05	—	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSF	PPEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	—	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.49%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.62%	—	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.91%	—	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.80%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	EMSF	PPEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.79%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.54%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.10%	—	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.40%	—	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.40%	—	—

EMSF vs. PPEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than PPEM's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMSF vs. PPEM - Dividend Comparison

EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, while PPEM has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
PPEM Putnam Panagora ESG Emerging Markets Equity ETF -	49.06%	6.05%	3.27%	1.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMSF and PPEM in my portfolio?

EMSF and PPEM have a correlation of 0.78, 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 PPEM?

On fees, PPEM is cheaper at 0.61% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMSF or PPEM?

PPEM is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

PPEM has the higher dividend yield at 49.06%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between EMSF and PPEM?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Putnam. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for EMSF and 0.61% for PPEM.