EMSF vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - EMSF is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Matthews, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. EMSF is actively managed, while UGA is passively managed. Over the past year, EMSF returned 58.48% vs 59.74% for UGA. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMSF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for UGA.

Performance

EMSF vs. UGA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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 lower than UGA's 64.09% return.

EMSF

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

UGA

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: -12.11%
• YTD: 64.09%
• 6M: 60.42%
• 1Y: 59.74%
• 3Y*: 18.95%
• 5Y*: 22.69%
• 10Y*: 14.31%

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

EMSF vs. UGA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.49%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	64.09%	-2.00%	3.77%	-15.89%

Correlation

The correlation between EMSF and UGA is -0.21, 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	-0.21
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.00

The correlation between EMSF and UGA shifts across timeframes, from -0.21 (1 year) to 0.00 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EMSF vs. UGA — 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

UGA

UGA Risk / Return Rank: 55
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 49
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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. UGA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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	UGA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.08	1.73	+0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	2.25	+0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.30	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.03	3.17	+0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.14	9.39	+3.75

EMSF vs. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMSF Sharpe Ratio is 2.08, which is comparable to the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMSF and UGA, 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. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMSF drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMSF and UGA.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSF	UGA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-86.59%	+61.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.57%	-18.96%	+4.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.68%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.11%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-75.89%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.10%	-18.05%	+11.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.72%	-36.69%	+30.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.46%	6.43%	-1.97%

Volatility

EMSF vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a higher volatility of 14.20% compared to United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) at 9.24%. This indicates that EMSF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMSF	UGA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.20%	9.24%	+4.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.49%	30.57%	-6.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.21%	35.22%	-7.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.87%	34.45%	-10.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.87%	37.22%	-13.35%

EMSF vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than UGA's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMSF vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.29%, while UGA has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.29%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
UGA United States Gasoline Fund LP	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMSF and UGA in my portfolio?

EMSF and UGA have a correlation of -0.21, 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 UGA?

EMSF has higher volatility (14.20%) compared to UGA (9.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMSF dropped -24.75% vs UGA's -86.59%.

Which ETF is better, EMSF or UGA?

On 1-year performance, UGA leads with 59.74% vs 58.48% for EMSF. On fees, UGA is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, UGA has been the lower-risk option at 9.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMSF or UGA?

Over the 1-year period, UGA has performed better with a 59.74% return vs 58.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMSF or UGA?

UGA is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.29%, compared with 0.00% for UGA.

What is the main difference between EMSF and UGA?

EMSF is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while UGA is Oil & Gas. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for EMSF and 0.75% for UGA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.08 vs 1.73), 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.