EMSF vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMSF is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Matthews, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. EMSF is actively managed, while RBIL is passively managed. Over the past year, EMSF returned 58.48% vs 4.07% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.20, they often move in opposite directions. EMSF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

EMSF vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMSF achieves a 45.49% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.32% return.

EMSF

• 1D: -6.10%
• 1M: 5.39%
• YTD: 45.49%
• 6M: 45.93%
• 1Y: 58.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: -0.19%
• YTD: 2.32%
• 6M: 2.37%
• 1Y: 4.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMSF vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.49%	14.06%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.32%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between EMSF and RBIL is -0.17, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.20

Return for Risk

EMSF vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 68
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	4.35	-2.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	6.69	-4.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	2.13	-0.75
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.03	7.82	-3.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.14	42.95	-29.81

EMSF vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMSF Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMSF and RBIL, 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. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMSF drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMSF and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSF	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-0.52%	-24.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.57%	-0.52%	-14.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.10%	-0.50%	-5.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.72%	-0.07%	-5.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.46%	0.10%	+4.36%

Volatility

EMSF vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a higher volatility of 14.20% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that EMSF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMSF	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.20%	0.36%	+13.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.49%	0.85%	+23.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.21%	0.95%	+27.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.87%	1.07%	+22.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.87%	1.07%	+22.80%

EMSF vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMSF vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.29%, less than RBIL's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.29%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMSF and RBIL in my portfolio?

EMSF and RBIL have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMSF or RBIL?

EMSF has higher volatility (14.20%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMSF dropped -24.75% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, EMSF or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 58.48% vs 4.07% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMSF or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 58.48% return vs 4.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMSF or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 1.29% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between EMSF and RBIL?

EMSF is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for EMSF and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.35 vs 2.08), 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.