EMSF vs. XCNY

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) and XCNY (SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. EMSF is actively managed, while XCNY is passively managed. Over the past year, EMSF returned 65.26% vs 39.11% for XCNY. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EMSF charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for XCNY.

Performance

EMSF vs. XCNY - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMSF achieves a 46.95% return, which is significantly higher than XCNY's 21.00% return.

EMSF

• 1D: 1.74%
• 1M: 10.89%
• YTD: 46.95%
• 6M: 41.41%
• 1Y: 65.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XCNY

• 1D: 0.95%
• 1M: 6.68%
• YTD: 21.00%
• 6M: 24.23%
• 1Y: 39.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMSF vs. XCNY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	46.95%	19.20%	-2.64%
XCNY SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	21.00%	20.42%	-3.51%

Correlation

The correlation between EMSF and XCNY is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 6, 2024	0.81

The correlation between EMSF and XCNY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMSF vs. XCNY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMSF	XCNY
Technology	43.6%	36.1%
Financial Services	16.6%	21.7%
Industrials	15.0%	7.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.7%	5.6%
Healthcare	6.8%	2.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.9%	3.6%
Utilities	2.8%	3.3%
Communication Services	2.0%	3.5%
Real Estate	1.6%	2.3%
Basic Materials	-	8.7%
Energy	-	4.9%

Return for Risk

EMSF vs. XCNY — 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: 78
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 73
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 77

XCNY

XCNY Risk / Return Rank: 70
XCNY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
XCNY Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
XCNY Omega Ratio Rank: 71
XCNY Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
XCNY Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. XCNY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) and SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY). 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	XCNY	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.59	2.37	+0.22
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.22	3.27	-0.05
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.43	+0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.59	3.37	+1.22
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.38	12.98	+2.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMSF vs. XCNY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMSF Sharpe Ratio is 2.59, which is comparable to the XCNY Sharpe Ratio of 2.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMSF and XCNY, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMSF	XCNY	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.59	2.37	+0.22
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	1.23	-0.23

Drawdowns

EMSF vs. XCNY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMSF drawdown since its inception was -24.75%, which is greater than XCNY's maximum drawdown of -19.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMSF and XCNY.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMSF	XCNY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.75%	-19.70%	-5.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.57%	-11.86%	-2.71%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.73%	-4.15%	-1.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.35%	3.08%	+1.27%

Volatility

EMSF vs. XCNY - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a higher volatility of 9.85% compared to SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF (XCNY) at 6.45%. This indicates that EMSF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XCNY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMSF	XCNY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.85%	6.45%	+3.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.95%	14.40%	+7.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.33%	16.57%	+8.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.75%	17.74%	+5.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.75%	17.74%	+5.01%

EMSF vs. XCNY - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMSF has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than XCNY's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMSF vs. XCNY - Dividend Comparison

EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, less than XCNY's 2.22% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.28%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
XCNY SPDR S&P Emerging Markets ex-China ETF	2.22%	2.68%	1.07%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMSF and XCNY in my portfolio?

EMSF and XCNY have a correlation of 0.87, 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 XCNY?

EMSF has higher volatility (9.85%) compared to XCNY (6.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMSF dropped -24.75% vs XCNY's -19.70%.

Which ETF is better, EMSF or XCNY?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 65.26% vs 39.11% for XCNY. On fees, XCNY is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, XCNY has been the lower-risk option at 6.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMSF or XCNY?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 65.26% return vs 39.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMSF or XCNY?

XCNY is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

XCNY has the higher dividend yield at 2.22%, compared with 1.28% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between EMSF and XCNY?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for EMSF and 0.15% for XCNY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 2.37), 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.