MCH vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MCH (Matthews China Active ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MCH is a China Equities fund actively managed by Matthews, while EMSF is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Matthews. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MCH returned 28.39% vs 63.33% for EMSF. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

MCH vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) 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, MCH achieves a 3.98% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 45.34% return.

MCH

• 1D: -1.27%
• 1M: 4.48%
• YTD: 3.98%
• 6M: 3.57%
• 1Y: 28.39%
• 3Y*: 13.10%
• 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)

MCH vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MCH Matthews China Active ETF	3.98%	30.20%	17.32%	-8.02%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.34%	19.20%	-3.09%	1.88%

Correlation

The correlation between MCH and EMSF is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2023	0.70

The correlation between MCH and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

MCH vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCH	EMSF
Financial Services	25.5%	16.6%
Consumer Cyclical	16.2%	7.7%
Technology	15.0%	43.6%
Communication Services	13.2%	2.0%
Industrials	12.4%	15.0%
Basic Materials	9.5%	-
Healthcare	5.5%	6.8%
Real Estate	2.7%	1.6%
Energy	1.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.6%	3.9%
Utilities	-	2.8%

Return for Risk

MCH vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCH

MCH Risk / Return Rank: 38
MCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
MCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
MCH Omega Ratio Rank: 38
MCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
MCH Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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.

MCH vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) 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.

	MCH	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	2.51	-1.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.03	3.14	-1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.43	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.90	4.37	-2.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.10	14.61	-9.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCH vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCH Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCH 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

	MCH	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	2.51	-1.10
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.19	0.98	-0.79

Drawdowns

MCH vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCH drawdown since its inception was -40.53%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCH and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCH	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.53%	-24.75%	-15.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.05%	-14.57%	-0.48%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.57%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.41%	-1.10%	-2.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.50%	-5.72%	-12.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.58%	4.35%	+1.23%

Volatility

MCH vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) is 6.72%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 9.96%. This indicates that MCH 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

	MCH	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.72%	9.96%	-3.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.45%	21.98%	-7.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.18%	25.35%	-5.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.53%	22.75%	+6.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.53%	22.75%	+6.78%

MCH vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both MCH and EMSF have an expense ratio of 0.79%.

Dividends

MCH vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

MCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.69%, 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%
MCH Matthews China Active ETF	1.69%	1.76%	1.31%	1.62%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCH and EMSF in my portfolio?

MCH and EMSF have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCH or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (9.96%) compared to MCH (6.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCH dropped -40.53% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, MCH or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 63.33% vs 28.39% for MCH. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, MCH has been the lower-risk option at 6.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCH or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 63.33% return vs 28.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCH or EMSF?

MCH and EMSF have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.

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

MCH has the higher dividend yield at 1.69%, compared with 1.30% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between MCH and EMSF?

MCH is categorized as China Equities, while EMSF is Emerging Markets Diversified.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 1.41), 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.