EMSF vs. TDEC

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) and TDEC (FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December) are both exchange-traded funds - EMSF is a Emerging Markets Equities fund actively managed by Matthews, while TDEC is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets. EMSF is actively managed, while TDEC is passively managed. Over the past year, EMSF returned 42.52% vs 18.15% for TDEC. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. EMSF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for TDEC.

Performance

EMSF vs. TDEC - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMSF achieves a 30.73% return, which is significantly higher than TDEC's 8.27% return.

EMSF

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

TDEC

• 1D: 0.45%
• 1M: 0.74%
• 6M: 4.07%
• YTD: 8.27%
• 1Y: 18.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.05%

*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
TDEC FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December	$55.89K	$75.20K	$190.42K

EMSF vs. TDEC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-1.95%
TDEC FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December	8.27%	21.39%	-0.75%

Correlation

The correlation between EMSF and TDEC is 0.89, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 23, 2024	0.88

The correlation between EMSF and TDEC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EMSF vs. TDEC — 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

TDEC

TDEC Risk / Return Rank: 70
TDEC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
TDEC Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
TDEC Omega Ratio Rank: 80
TDEC Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
TDEC Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. TDEC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December (TDEC). 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	TDEC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	1.59	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	2.22	-0.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.34	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.10	2.16	-0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.05	8.78	-1.73

EMSF vs. TDEC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMSF Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is comparable to the TDEC Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMSF and TDEC, 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. TDEC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMSF drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, which is greater than TDEC's maximum drawdown of -10.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMSF and TDEC.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSF	TDEC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-10.30%	-14.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.49%	-8.16%	-11.33%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.62%	-1.58%	-14.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.91%	-1.12%	-4.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.80%	2.01%	+3.79%

Volatility

EMSF vs. TDEC - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a higher volatility of 10.79% compared to FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December (TDEC) at 3.54%. This indicates that EMSF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TDEC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMSF	TDEC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.79%	3.54%	+7.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	26.54%	10.30%	+16.24%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.10%	11.07%	+19.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.40%	11.98%	+12.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.40%	11.98%	+12.42%

EMSF vs. TDEC - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than TDEC's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMSF vs. TDEC - Dividend Comparison

EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, while TDEC 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%
TDEC FT Vest Emerging Markets Buffer ETF - December	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMSF and TDEC in my portfolio?

EMSF and TDEC have a correlation of 0.89, 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 TDEC?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to TDEC (3.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMSF dropped -24.75% vs TDEC's -10.30%.

Which ETF is better, EMSF or TDEC?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 42.52% vs 18.15% for TDEC. On fees, EMSF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, TDEC has been the lower-risk option at 3.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMSF or TDEC?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 42.52% return vs 18.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMSF or TDEC?

EMSF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for TDEC.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 0.00% for TDEC.

What is the main difference between EMSF and TDEC?

EMSF is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while TDEC is Defined Outcome. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and FT Vest. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for EMSF and 0.95% for TDEC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TDEC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.59 vs 1.36), 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.