GEM vs. EMSF
GEM (Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. GEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, GEM returned 35.17% vs 42.52% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.90 means they have usually moved in the same direction. GEM charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.
Performance
GEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GEM achieves a 17.80% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 30.73% return.
GEM
- 1D
- 0.72%
- 1M
- -2.35%
- 6M
- 8.93%
- YTD
- 17.80%
- 1Y
- 35.17%
- 3Y*
- 18.77%
- 5Y*
- 7.71%
- 10Y*
- 8.48%
- ALL TIME*
- 9.14%
EMSF
- 1D
- 0.83%
- 1M
- -8.36%
- 6M
- 17.49%
- YTD
- 30.73%
- 1Y
- 42.52%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 15.92%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $80.02K | $93.23K | $184.42K | |
| $6.22M | $6.08M | $5.34M |
GEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
GEM Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF | 17.80% | 33.43% | 6.66% | 7.32% |
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF | 30.73% | 19.20% | -3.09% | 0.98% |
Correlation
The correlation between GEM and EMSF is 0.94, 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. | 0.94 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023 | 0.90 |
The correlation between GEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.
GEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
GEM
EMSF
Technology
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Basic Materials
-
Industrials
Healthcare
Energy
-
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Real Estate
Technology
GEM
EMSF
Financial Services
GEM
EMSF
Consumer Cyclical
GEM
EMSF
Communication Services
GEM
EMSF
Basic Materials
GEM
EMSF
-
Industrials
GEM
EMSF
Healthcare
GEM
EMSF
Energy
GEM
EMSF
-
Consumer Defensive
GEM
EMSF
Utilities
GEM
EMSF
Real Estate
GEM
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
GEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank
GEM
EMSF
GEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) 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.
| GEM | EMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.08 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.11 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 1.25 | +0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.54 | 2.10 | +0.44 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.58 | 7.05 | +0.53 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GEM drawdown since its inception was -37.02%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GEM and EMSF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GEM | EMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -37.02% | -24.75% | -12.27% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -13.50% | -19.49% | +5.99% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.54% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -33.14% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -37.02% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -9.35% | -15.62% | +6.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.93% | -5.91% | -6.02% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.51% | 5.80% | -1.29% |
Volatility
GEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF (GEM) is 8.66%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.79%. This indicates that GEM 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GEM | EMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.66% | 10.79% | -2.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.69% | 26.54% | -4.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.75% | 30.10% | -6.35% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.64% | 24.40% | -5.76% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.35% | 24.40% | -5.05% |
GEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison
GEM has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.
Dividends
GEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison
GEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, more than EMSF's 1.44% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF | 1.44% | 1.88% | 3.29% | 0.02% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GEM Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF | 1.95% | 2.30% | 2.58% | 2.97% | 2.96% | 3.00% | 1.63% | 3.13% | 2.08% | 1.81% | 1.98% | 0.25% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.94, GEM 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.
EMSF has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to GEM (8.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GEM dropped -37.02% vs EMSF's -24.75%.
On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 42.52% vs 35.17% for GEM. On fees, GEM is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, GEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 42.52% return vs 35.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GEM is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.
GEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.95%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.
They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for GEM and 0.79% for EMSF.
GEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.44 vs 1.36), 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 GEM 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