FDEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FDEM (Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. FDEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, FDEM returned 28.90% vs 44.16% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. FDEM charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

FDEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDEM achieves a 15.13% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 32.23% return.

FDEM

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: -0.76%
• 6M: 6.76%
• YTD: 15.13%
• 1Y: 28.90%
• 3Y*: 19.52%
• 5Y*: 9.21%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.26%

EMSF

• 1D: 1.15%
• 1M: -7.30%
• 6M: 18.36%
• YTD: 32.23%
• 1Y: 44.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.34%

*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	$153.53K	$123.94K	$184.31K
FDEM Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF	$2.85M	$2.66M	$4.45M

FDEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDEM Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF	15.13%	26.75%	9.34%	8.23%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	32.23%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between FDEM and EMSF is 0.91, 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.	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.85

The correlation between FDEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDEM	EMSF
Technology	39.5%	52.8%
Financial Services	15.8%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	6.3%
Communication Services	9.4%	1.7%
Energy	6.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	3.6%
Real Estate	4.5%	1.6%
Industrials	4.3%	11.0%
Basic Materials	2.6%	-
Utilities	0.0%	2.1%
Healthcare	-	6.0%

Return for Risk

FDEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FDEM

FDEM Risk / Return Rank: 57
FDEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
FDEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
FDEM Omega Ratio Rank: 58
FDEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
FDEM Martin Ratio Rank: 57

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 58
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

FDEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) and Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF). 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.

	FDEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.38	1.48	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	1.98	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.27	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.29	2.28	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.02	7.54	-0.52

FDEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDEM and EMSF, 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

FDEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDEM drawdown since its inception was -33.65%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.65%	-24.75%	-8.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.70%	-19.49%	+6.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.04%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.82%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.46%	-14.65%	+7.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.77%	-5.92%	-2.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.13%	5.87%	-1.74%

Volatility

FDEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF (FDEM) is 7.52%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.75%. This indicates that FDEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.52%	10.75%	-3.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.18%	26.52%	-7.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.15%	30.13%	-8.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.93%	24.39%	-7.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.32%	24.39%	-6.07%

FDEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDEM has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

FDEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.04%, more than EMSF's 1.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.42%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FDEM Fidelity Emerging Markets Multifactor ETF	3.04%	3.23%	4.05%	4.41%	3.95%	2.71%	1.84%	2.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, FDEM and EMSF move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FDEM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.75%) compared to FDEM (7.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDEM dropped -33.65% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, FDEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 44.16% vs 28.90% for FDEM. On fees, FDEM is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, FDEM has been the lower-risk option at 7.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 44.16% return vs 28.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDEM or EMSF?

FDEM is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

FDEM has the higher dividend yield at 3.04%, compared with 1.42% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between FDEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FDEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.48 vs 1.38), 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.