FFEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF (FFEM) and Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF).

FFEM and EMSF are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. FFEM is managed by Fidelity. EMSF is an actively managed fund by Matthews. It was launched on Sep 21, 2023.

Performance

FFEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

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

FFEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FFEM Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF	6.04%	40.03%	-2.27%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	9.54%	19.20%	-3.48%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFEM achieves a 6.04% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 9.54% return.

FFEM

• 1D: 4.43%
• 1M: -8.84%
• YTD: 6.04%
• 6M: 12.60%
• 1Y: 41.88%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: 4.37%
• 1M: -9.73%
• YTD: 9.54%
• 6M: 8.20%
• 1Y: 30.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FFEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFEM has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

EMSF

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF

FFEM

Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF

Return for Risk

FFEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFEM

FFEM Risk / Return Rank: 89
FFEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FFEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
FFEM Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FFEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
FFEM Martin Ratio Rank: 90

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 69
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 65
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

FFEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF (FFEM) 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.

	FFEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.90	1.26	+0.64
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.53	1.74	+0.79
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.24	+0.13
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.04	2.05	+0.99
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.69	6.96	+4.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FFEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is higher than the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFEM and EMSF, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FFEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.90	1.26	+0.64
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.52	0.49	+1.03

Correlation

The correlation between FFEM and EMSF is 0.90, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

FFEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

FFEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, less than EMSF's 1.72% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FFEM Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF	1.54%	1.59%	0.16%	0.00%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.72%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%

Drawdowns

FFEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFEM drawdown since its inception was -16.29%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.29%	-24.75%	+8.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.57%	-14.57%	+1.00%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.74%	-10.83%	+1.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.44%	-5.96%	+3.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.53%	4.29%	-0.76%

Volatility

FFEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF (FFEM) is 11.96%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 12.64%. This indicates that FFEM 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

	FFEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.96%	12.64%	-0.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.75%	19.40%	-2.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.16%	24.55%	-2.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.13%	21.79%	-0.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.13%	21.79%	-0.66%