MCHS vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MCHS (Matthews China Discovery Active ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MCHS 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, MCHS returned 81.12% vs 58.48% for EMSF. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MCHS charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

MCHS vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) 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, MCHS achieves a 51.63% return, which is significantly higher than EMSF's 45.49% return.

MCHS

• 1D: -4.50%
• 1M: 6.46%
• YTD: 51.63%
• 6M: 50.45%
• 1Y: 81.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: -6.10%
• 1M: 5.39%
• YTD: 45.49%
• 6M: 45.93%
• 1Y: 58.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MCHS vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	51.63%	31.19%	6.53%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.49%	19.20%	0.64%

Correlation

The correlation between MCHS and EMSF is 0.56, 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	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.64

The correlation between MCHS and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MCHS vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCHS

MCHS Risk / Return Rank: 92
MCHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Omega Ratio Rank: 91
MCHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
MCHS Martin Ratio Rank: 90

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 68
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

MCHS vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	MCHS	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.25	2.08	+1.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	2.62	+1.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.37	+0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.71	4.03	+2.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.57	13.14	+6.43

MCHS vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCHS Sharpe Ratio is 3.25, which is higher than the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCHS 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

MCHS vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCHS drawdown since its inception was -23.75%, roughly equal to the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCHS and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCHS	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.75%	-24.75%	+1.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.15%	-14.57%	+2.42%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.50%	-6.10%	+1.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.53%	-5.72%	-1.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.16%	4.46%	-0.30%

Volatility

MCHS vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews China Discovery Active ETF (MCHS) is 13.48%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 14.20%. This indicates that MCHS 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

	MCHS	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.48%	14.20%	-0.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.61%	24.49%	-2.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.11%	28.21%	-3.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.95%	23.87%	+5.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.95%	23.87%	+5.08%

MCHS vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCHS has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCHS vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

MCHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.35%, more than EMSF's 1.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.29%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
MCHS Matthews China Discovery Active ETF	2.35%	3.56%	5.48%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCHS and EMSF in my portfolio?

MCHS and EMSF have a correlation of 0.56, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCHS or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (14.20%) compared to MCHS (13.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCHS dropped -23.75% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, MCHS or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, MCHS leads with 81.12% vs 58.48% for EMSF. On fees, EMSF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, MCHS has been the lower-risk option at 13.48%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCHS or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, MCHS has performed better with a 81.12% return vs 58.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCHS or EMSF?

EMSF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MCHS.

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

MCHS has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 1.29% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between MCHS and EMSF?

MCHS is categorized as China Equities, while EMSF is Emerging Markets Diversified. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for MCHS and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.25 vs 2.08), 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.