MEM vs. ECOW

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MEM (Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF) and ECOW (Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. MEM is actively managed, while ECOW is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MEM returned 19.44%/yr vs 17.21%/yr for ECOW. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MEM charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for ECOW.

Performance

MEM vs. ECOW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF (ECOW). 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 ECOW's 12.88% 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%

ECOW

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 3.07%
• 6M: 4.72%
• YTD: 12.88%
• 1Y: 29.12%
• 3Y*: 17.21%
• 5Y*: 6.83%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.32%

*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)
ECOW Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF	$573.24K	$693.96K	$1.37M
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	$115.09K	$118.00K	$130.93K

MEM vs. ECOW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	19.84%	28.31%	10.11%	6.92%	7.13%
ECOW Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF	12.88%	32.50%	3.17%	15.79%	4.42%

Correlation

The correlation between MEM and ECOW is 0.73, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2022	0.77

The correlation between MEM and ECOW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

MEM vs. ECOW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEM	ECOW
Technology	45.6%	4.2%
Financial Services	23.8%	-
Industrials	7.8%	10.7%
Basic Materials	7.7%	11.2%
Consumer Cyclical	6.8%	13.9%
Communication Services	4.3%	15.2%
Energy	2.0%	10.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	11.6%
Healthcare	0.6%	3.7%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	6.9%

Return for Risk

MEM vs. ECOW — 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

ECOW

ECOW Risk / Return Rank: 80
ECOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
ECOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
ECOW Omega Ratio Rank: 81
ECOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
ECOW Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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. ECOW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF (ECOW). 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	ECOW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	1.98	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.08	2.70	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.36	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.59	3.50	-0.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.35	9.20	-1.85

MEM vs. ECOW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is comparable to the ECOW Sharpe Ratio of 1.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEM and ECOW, 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. ECOW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEM drawdown since its inception was -19.10%, smaller than the maximum ECOW drawdown of -40.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEM and ECOW.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEM	ECOW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.10%	-40.27%	+21.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.62%	-8.35%	-6.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.10%	-18.77%	-0.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.30%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.45%	-3.72%	-5.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.84%	-10.93%	+6.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.13%	3.17%	+1.96%

Volatility

MEM vs. ECOW - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) has a higher volatility of 8.36% compared to Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF (ECOW) at 3.45%. This indicates that MEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ECOW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEM	ECOW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.36%	3.45%	+4.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.33%	11.82%	+10.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.98%	14.78%	+10.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.36%	17.73%	+1.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.36%	20.03%	-0.67%

MEM vs. ECOW - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEM has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than ECOW's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEM vs. ECOW - Dividend Comparison

MEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.97%, less than ECOW's 4.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ECOW Pacer Emerging Markets Cash Cows 100 ETF	4.45%	5.20%	7.35%	5.46%	7.50%	4.39%	3.35%	8.08%
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	2.97%	3.56%	7.81%	0.01%	0.53%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEM and ECOW in my portfolio?

MEM and ECOW have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MEM or ECOW?

MEM has higher volatility (8.36%) compared to ECOW (3.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEM dropped -19.10% vs ECOW's -40.27%.

Which ETF is better, MEM or ECOW?

On 3-year performance, MEM leads with 19.44% vs 17.21% for ECOW. On fees, ECOW is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, ECOW has been the lower-risk option at 3.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEM or ECOW?

Over the 3-year period, MEM has performed better with a 19.44% return vs 17.21%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEM or ECOW?

ECOW is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MEM.

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

ECOW has the higher dividend yield at 4.45%, compared with 2.97% for MEM.

What is the main difference between MEM and ECOW?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MEM and 0.70% for ECOW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ECOW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.98 vs 1.52), 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.