FRDM vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FRDM (Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. FRDM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, FRDM returned 97.46% vs 63.33% for EMSF. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FRDM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

FRDM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) and Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FRDM having a 44.61% return and EMSF slightly higher at 45.34%.

FRDM

• 1D: -1.30%
• 1M: 17.06%
• YTD: 44.61%
• 6M: 53.16%
• 1Y: 97.46%
• 3Y*: 37.08%
• 5Y*: 19.30%
• 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)

FRDM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	44.61%	61.27%	1.70%	15.44%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.34%	19.20%	-3.09%	1.88%

Correlation

The correlation between FRDM and EMSF 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 25, 2023	0.78

The correlation between FRDM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

FRDM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FRDM	EMSF
Technology	41.1%	43.6%
Financial Services	22.1%	16.6%
Industrials	8.6%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	7.8%	7.7%
Basic Materials	7.4%	-
Communication Services	3.9%	2.0%
Utilities	2.6%	2.8%
Real Estate	2.5%	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	3.9%
Healthcare	1.8%	6.8%
Energy	0.1%	-

Return for Risk

FRDM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FRDM

FRDM Risk / Return Rank: 93
FRDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
FRDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
FRDM Omega Ratio Rank: 93
FRDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FRDM Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

FRDM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) 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.

	FRDM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	4.00	2.51	+1.49
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.65	3.14	+1.51
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.67	1.43	+0.24
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.81	4.37	+1.44
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	23.37	14.61	+8.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FRDM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FRDM Sharpe Ratio is 4.00, which is higher than the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRDM 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

	FRDM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.00	2.51	+1.49
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.93	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.85	0.98	-0.12

Drawdowns

FRDM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRDM drawdown since its inception was -40.49%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRDM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRDM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.49%	-24.75%	-15.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.87%	-14.57%	-2.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.87%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.30%	-1.10%	-0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.09%	-5.72%	-1.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.18%	4.35%	-0.17%

Volatility

FRDM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) has a higher volatility of 11.03% compared to Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) at 9.96%. This indicates that FRDM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FRDM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.03%	9.96%	+1.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.65%	21.98%	-0.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.50%	25.35%	-0.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.80%	22.75%	-1.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.77%	22.75%	+0.02%

FRDM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FRDM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

FRDM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

FRDM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, more than EMSF's 1.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.30%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	1.51%	2.26%	2.53%	2.66%	2.72%	2.17%	1.11%	1.07%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FRDM and EMSF in my portfolio?

FRDM and EMSF 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, FRDM or EMSF?

FRDM has higher volatility (11.03%) compared to EMSF (9.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FRDM dropped -40.49% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, FRDM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, FRDM leads with 97.46% vs 63.33% for EMSF. On fees, FRDM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EMSF has been the lower-risk option at 9.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FRDM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, FRDM has performed better with a 97.46% return vs 63.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FRDM or EMSF?

FRDM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

FRDM has the higher dividend yield at 1.51%, compared with 1.30% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between FRDM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Freedom Funds and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for FRDM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.00 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.