FFEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FFEM (Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Over the past year, FFEM returned 68.49% vs 63.33% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FFEM charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFEM achieves a 33.06% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 45.34% return.

FFEM

• 1D: -1.56%
• 1M: 9.73%
• YTD: 33.06%
• 6M: 36.71%
• 1Y: 68.49%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: -1.10%
• 1M: 8.61%
• YTD: 45.34%
• 6M: 40.08%
• 1Y: 63.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FFEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FFEM Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF	33.06%	40.03%	-2.27%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.34%	19.20%	-3.48%

Correlation

The correlation between FFEM and EMSF is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 22, 2024	0.91

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

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: 91
FFEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FFEM Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FFEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
FFEM Martin Ratio Rank: 89

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 76
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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	3.19	2.51	+0.68
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.00	3.14	+0.86
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.43	+0.13
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.07	4.37	+0.70
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	20.18	14.61	+5.56
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 3.19, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFEM 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FFEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.19	2.51	+0.68
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.21	0.98	+1.24

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	-1.56%	-1.10%	-0.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.41%	-5.72%	+3.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.41%	4.35%	-0.94%

Volatility

FFEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF (FFEM) is 9.03%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 9.96%. 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	9.03%	9.96%	-0.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.77%	21.98%	-3.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.56%	25.35%	-3.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.02%	22.75%	-0.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.02%	22.75%	-0.73%

FFEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FFEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

FFEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than EMSF's 1.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.30%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
FFEM Fidelity Fundamental Emerging Markets ETF	1.22%	1.59%	0.16%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, FFEM 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, FFEM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (9.96%) compared to FFEM (9.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFEM dropped -16.29% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, FFEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, FFEM leads with 68.49% vs 63.33% for EMSF. On fees, FFEM is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, FFEM has been the lower-risk option at 9.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, FFEM has performed better with a 68.49% return vs 63.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFEM or EMSF?

FFEM is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 1.22% for FFEM.

What is the main difference between FFEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FFEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FFEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.19 vs 2.51), 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.