MEM vs. BBEM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MEM (Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF) and BBEM (JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. MEM is actively managed, while BBEM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MEM returned 23.26%/yr vs 23.00%/yr for BBEM. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MEM charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for BBEM.

Performance

MEM vs. BBEM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with MEM having a 28.39% return and BBEM slightly lower at 27.02%.

MEM

• 1D: -1.34%
• 1M: 8.03%
• YTD: 28.39%
• 6M: 30.14%
• 1Y: 54.36%
• 3Y*: 23.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BBEM

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: 9.46%
• YTD: 27.02%
• 6M: 29.37%
• 1Y: 53.50%
• 3Y*: 23.00%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MEM vs. BBEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	28.39%	28.31%	10.11%	6.32%
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	27.02%	32.43%	5.61%	6.01%

Correlation

The correlation between MEM and BBEM is 0.95 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2023	0.94

The correlation between MEM and BBEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

MEM vs. BBEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEM	BBEM
Technology	37.5%	36.5%
Financial Services	24.6%	19.0%
Basic Materials	9.2%	6.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	10.0%
Industrials	8.9%	8.1%
Communication Services	5.6%	6.7%
Energy	2.9%	4.2%
Real Estate	1.6%	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	3.0%
Healthcare	0.8%	2.8%
Utilities	-	2.5%

Return for Risk

MEM vs. BBEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MEM

MEM Risk / Return Rank: 77
MEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
MEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
MEM Omega Ratio Rank: 78
MEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
MEM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

BBEM

BBEM Risk / Return Rank: 82
BBEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
BBEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
BBEM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
BBEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
BBEM Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

MEM vs. BBEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM). 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.

	MEM	BBEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.65	2.76	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.47	3.64	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.51	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.74	4.10	-0.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.64	16.16	-2.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MEM vs. BBEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.65, which is comparable to the BBEM Sharpe Ratio of 2.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEM and BBEM, 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

	MEM	BBEM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.65	2.76	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.14	1.32	-0.18

Drawdowns

MEM vs. BBEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEM drawdown since its inception was -19.10%, which is greater than BBEM's maximum drawdown of -17.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEM and BBEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEM	BBEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.10%	-17.42%	-1.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.62%	-13.12%	-1.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.10%	-17.42%	-1.68%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.34%	-1.31%	-0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.74%	-3.70%	-1.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.00%	3.32%	+0.68%

Volatility

MEM vs. BBEM - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BBEM) have volatilities of 8.97% and 8.59%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEM	BBEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.97%	8.59%	+0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.95%	17.20%	+0.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.65%	19.49%	+1.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.31%	17.50%	+0.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.31%	17.50%	+0.81%

MEM vs. BBEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEM has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than BBEM's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEM vs. BBEM - Dividend Comparison

MEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.77%, less than BBEM's 4.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
BBEM JPMorgan Betabuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	4.59%	5.86%	2.73%	1.94%	0.00%
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	2.77%	3.56%	7.81%	0.01%	0.53%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEM and BBEM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.95, MEM and BBEM 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 BBEM?

MEM has higher volatility (8.97%) compared to BBEM (8.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEM dropped -19.10% vs BBEM's -17.42%.

Which ETF is better, MEM or BBEM?

On 3-year performance, MEM leads with 23.26% vs 23.00% for BBEM. On fees, BBEM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, BBEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEM or BBEM?

Over the 3-year period, MEM has performed better with a 23.26% return vs 23.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEM or BBEM?

BBEM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MEM.

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

BBEM has the higher dividend yield at 4.59%, compared with 2.77% for MEM.

What is the main difference between MEM and BBEM?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MEM and 0.15% for BBEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BBEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.76 vs 2.65), 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.