LDEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LDEM (iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. LDEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, LDEM returned 13.51% vs 42.52% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. LDEM charges 0.16%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

LDEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM) 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, LDEM achieves a 3.29% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 30.73% return.

LDEM

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 1.22%
• 6M: -3.13%
• YTD: 3.29%
• 1Y: 13.51%
• 3Y*: 11.73%
• 5Y*: 2.40%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.91%

EMSF

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: -8.36%
• 6M: 17.49%
• YTD: 30.73%
• 1Y: 42.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.92%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	$80.02K	$93.23K	$184.42K
LDEM iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF	$33.47K	$44.13K	$91.64K

LDEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LDEM iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF	3.29%	32.49%	5.87%	5.51%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between LDEM and EMSF is 0.89, 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.	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.85

The correlation between LDEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

LDEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LDEM	EMSF
Financial Services	24.8%	15.0%
Technology	23.9%	52.8%
Consumer Cyclical	12.0%	6.3%
Communication Services	9.9%	1.7%
Industrials	7.6%	11.0%
Basic Materials	6.7%	-
Energy	4.4%	-
Healthcare	3.6%	6.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.4%	3.6%
Utilities	2.5%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.4%	1.6%

Return for Risk

LDEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LDEM

LDEM Risk / Return Rank: 28
LDEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
LDEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
LDEM Omega Ratio Rank: 27
LDEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
LDEM Martin Ratio Rank: 29

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 57
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 59

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LDEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM) 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.

	LDEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.65	1.36	-0.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.02	1.86	-0.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.25	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.97	2.10	-1.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.61	7.05	-4.44

LDEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LDEM Sharpe Ratio is 0.65, which is lower than the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LDEM 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.

Drawdowns

LDEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LDEM drawdown since its inception was -40.82%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LDEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	LDEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.82%	-24.75%	-16.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.21%	-19.49%	+6.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.12%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.26%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.19%	-15.62%	+8.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.09%	-5.91%	-11.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.87%	5.80%	-0.93%

Volatility

LDEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF (LDEM) is 6.88%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.79%. This indicates that LDEM 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

	LDEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.88%	10.79%	-3.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.06%	26.54%	-9.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.51%	30.10%	-10.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.49%	24.40%	-4.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.92%	24.40%	-3.48%

LDEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

LDEM has a 0.16% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

LDEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

LDEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.97%, more than EMSF's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LDEM iShares ESG MSCI EM Leaders ETF	2.97%	3.26%	2.64%	3.20%	4.93%	1.82%	1.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LDEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

LDEM and EMSF have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LDEM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to LDEM (6.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LDEM dropped -40.82% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, LDEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 42.52% vs 13.51% for LDEM. On fees, LDEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, LDEM has been the lower-risk option at 6.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LDEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 42.52% return vs 13.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LDEM or EMSF?

LDEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

LDEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.97%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between LDEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for LDEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 0.65), 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.