FTHF vs. EMSF
FTHF (First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. FTHF is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, FTHF returned 109.33% vs 63.33% for EMSF. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FTHF charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.
Performance
FTHF vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FTHF achieves a 51.24% return, which is significantly higher than EMSF's 45.34% return.
FTHF
- 1D
- -1.84%
- 1M
- 15.16%
- YTD
- 51.24%
- 6M
- 61.52%
- 1Y
- 109.33%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EMSF
- 1D
- -1.10%
- 1M
- 8.61%
- YTD
- 45.34%
- 6M
- 40.08%
- 1Y
- 63.33%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FTHF vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF | 51.24% | 65.30% | -8.14% | 18.14% |
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF | 45.34% | 19.20% | -3.09% | 9.01% |
Correlation
The correlation between FTHF and EMSF is 0.84, 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 | 0.84 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 1, 2023 | 0.78 |
The correlation between FTHF and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.
FTHF vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
FTHF
EMSF
Technology
Financial Services
Basic Materials
-
Energy
-
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Communication Services
Consumer Cyclical
Healthcare
Real Estate
-
Technology
FTHF
EMSF
Financial Services
FTHF
EMSF
Basic Materials
FTHF
EMSF
-
Energy
FTHF
EMSF
-
Industrials
FTHF
EMSF
Consumer Defensive
FTHF
EMSF
Utilities
FTHF
EMSF
Communication Services
FTHF
EMSF
Consumer Cyclical
FTHF
EMSF
Healthcare
FTHF
EMSF
Real Estate
FTHF
-
EMSF
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
FTHF vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank
FTHF
EMSF
FTHF vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF) 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.
| FTHF | EMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.85 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.71 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.62 | 1.43 | +0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.74 | 4.37 | +2.37 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.95 | 14.61 | +4.34 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FTHF | EMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.36 | 2.51 | +0.85 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.86 | 0.98 | +0.89 |
Drawdowns
FTHF vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FTHF drawdown since its inception was -17.36%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTHF and EMSF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FTHF | EMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -17.36% | -24.75% | +7.39% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.31% | -14.57% | -1.74% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.84% | -1.10% | -0.74% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.22% | -5.72% | +1.50% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.79% | 4.35% | +1.44% |
Volatility
FTHF vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison
First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF (FTHF) has a higher volatility of 12.15% compared to Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) at 9.96%. This indicates that FTHF'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FTHF | EMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 12.15% | 9.96% | +2.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.47% | 21.98% | +2.49% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 32.76% | 25.35% | +7.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.45% | 22.75% | +2.70% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.45% | 22.75% | +2.70% |
FTHF vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison
FTHF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.
Dividends
FTHF vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison
FTHF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.98%, more 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% |
FTHF First Trust Emerging Markets Human Flourishing ETF | 2.98% | 4.40% | 3.34% | 0.51% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FTHF and EMSF have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FTHF has higher volatility (12.15%) compared to EMSF (9.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FTHF dropped -17.36% vs EMSF's -24.75%.
On 1-year performance, FTHF leads with 109.33% vs 63.33% for EMSF. On fees, FTHF is cheaper at 0.75% 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.
Over the 1-year period, FTHF has performed better with a 109.33% return vs 63.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FTHF is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.
FTHF has the higher dividend yield at 2.98%, compared with 1.30% for EMSF.
They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for FTHF and 0.79% for EMSF.
FTHF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.36 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.
Find the right allocation for FTHF and EMSF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer