MEM vs. ASIA

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MEM (Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF) and ASIA (Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MEM is a Emerging Markets Equities fund actively managed by Matthews, while ASIA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by Matthews. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MEM returned 37.66% vs 37.96% for ASIA. Their correlation of 0.93 means they have usually moved in the same direction. Both charge a 0.79% expense ratio.

Performance

MEM vs. ASIA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MEM achieves a 19.84% return, which is significantly higher than ASIA's 18.51% return.

MEM

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: -1.66%
• 6M: 9.62%
• YTD: 19.84%
• 1Y: 37.66%
• 3Y*: 19.44%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.74%

ASIA

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: -4.68%
• 6M: 10.28%
• YTD: 18.51%
• 1Y: 37.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.31%

*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)
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	$106.79K	$177.13K	$195.99K
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	$115.09K	$118.00K	$130.93K

MEM vs. ASIA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	19.84%	28.31%	10.11%	6.60%
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	18.51%	32.06%	3.41%	0.01%

Correlation

The correlation between MEM and ASIA 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	0.93

The correlation between MEM and ASIA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

MEM vs. ASIA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEM	ASIA
Technology	45.6%	62.1%
Financial Services	23.8%	15.4%
Industrials	7.8%	7.1%
Basic Materials	7.7%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	6.8%	3.4%
Communication Services	4.3%	4.6%
Energy	2.0%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	1.1%
Healthcare	0.6%	2.3%
Real Estate	-	1.6%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

MEM vs. ASIA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MEM

MEM Risk / Return Rank: 60
MEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
MEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
MEM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
MEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
MEM Martin Ratio Rank: 58

ASIA

ASIA Risk / Return Rank: 54
ASIA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
ASIA Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
ASIA Omega Ratio Rank: 58
ASIA Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
ASIA Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

MEM vs. ASIA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA). 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.

	MEM	ASIA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	1.39	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.08	1.85	+0.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.27	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.59	2.06	+0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.35	6.55	+0.81

MEM vs. ASIA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is comparable to the ASIA Sharpe Ratio of 1.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEM and ASIA, 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

MEM vs. ASIA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEM drawdown since its inception was -19.10%, smaller than the maximum ASIA drawdown of -23.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEM and ASIA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEM	ASIA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.10%	-23.95%	+4.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.62%	-18.52%	+3.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.10%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.45%	-14.51%	+5.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.84%	-5.12%	+0.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.13%	5.81%	-0.68%

Volatility

MEM vs. ASIA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) is 8.36%, while Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) has a volatility of 9.95%. This indicates that MEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ASIA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEM	ASIA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.36%	9.95%	-1.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.33%	25.02%	-2.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.98%	27.46%	-2.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.36%	22.24%	-2.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.36%	22.24%	-2.88%

MEM vs. ASIA - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both MEM and ASIA have an expense ratio of 0.79%.

Dividends

MEM vs. ASIA - Dividend Comparison

MEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.97%, more than ASIA's 0.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	0.88%	1.05%	0.58%	0.12%	0.00%
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	2.97%	3.56%	7.81%	0.01%	0.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEM and ASIA in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, MEM and ASIA 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.

Which is riskier, MEM or ASIA?

ASIA has higher volatility (9.95%) compared to MEM (8.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEM dropped -19.10% vs ASIA's -23.95%.

Which ETF is better, MEM or ASIA?

On 1-year performance, ASIA leads with 37.96% vs 37.66% for MEM. Both ETFs have the same 0.79% expense ratio. On volatility, MEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEM or ASIA?

Over the 1-year period, ASIA has performed better with a 37.96% return vs 37.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEM or ASIA?

MEM and ASIA have the same expense ratio: 0.79% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MEM or ASIA?

MEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.97%, compared with 0.88% for ASIA.

What is the main difference between MEM and ASIA?

MEM is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while ASIA is Asia Pacific Equities.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.52 vs 1.39), 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.