MEM vs. EMDM

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MEM (Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF) and EMDM (First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. MEM is actively managed, while EMDM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MEM returned 19.44%/yr vs 28.08%/yr for EMDM. Their correlation of 0.87 means they have usually moved in the same direction. MEM charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for EMDM.

Performance

MEM vs. EMDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM). 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 lower than EMDM's 28.39% 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%

EMDM

• 1D: 0.42%
• 1M: -3.12%
• 6M: 12.42%
• YTD: 28.39%
• 1Y: 66.69%
• 3Y*: 28.08%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 26.54%

*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)
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	$370.33K	$752.09K	$541.22K
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	$115.09K	$118.00K	$130.93K

MEM vs. EMDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	19.84%	28.31%	10.11%	3.28%
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	28.39%	59.68%	-4.93%	14.75%

Correlation

The correlation between MEM and EMDM is 0.90, 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.	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2023	0.87

The correlation between MEM and EMDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

MEM vs. EMDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEM	EMDM
Technology	45.6%	39.9%
Financial Services	23.8%	25.6%
Industrials	7.8%	2.6%
Basic Materials	7.7%	12.7%
Consumer Cyclical	6.8%	5.3%
Communication Services	4.3%	4.0%
Energy	2.0%	4.8%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	3.1%
Healthcare	0.6%	0.5%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	1.5%

Return for Risk

MEM vs. EMDM — 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

EMDM

EMDM Risk / Return Rank: 89
EMDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EMDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
EMDM Omega Ratio Rank: 89
EMDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
EMDM Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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. EMDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM). 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	EMDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	2.41	-0.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.08	2.94	-0.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.42	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.59	4.28	-1.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.35	13.58	-6.23

MEM vs. EMDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is lower than the EMDM Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEM and EMDM, 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. EMDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEM drawdown since its inception was -19.10%, roughly equal to the maximum EMDM drawdown of -18.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEM and EMDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEM	EMDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.10%	-18.81%	-0.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.62%	-15.65%	+1.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.10%	-18.81%	-0.29%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.45%	-10.51%	+1.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.84%	-4.21%	-0.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.13%	4.93%	+0.20%

Volatility

MEM vs. EMDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) is 8.36%, while First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF (EMDM) has a volatility of 9.92%. This indicates that MEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEM	EMDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.36%	9.92%	-1.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.33%	25.36%	-3.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.98%	27.91%	-2.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.36%	21.15%	-1.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.36%	21.15%	-1.79%

MEM vs. EMDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEM has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than EMDM's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEM vs. EMDM - Dividend Comparison

MEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.97%, which matches EMDM's 2.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMDM First Trust Bloomberg Emerging Market Democracies ETF	2.95%	3.57%	5.87%	2.16%	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 EMDM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, MEM and EMDM 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 EMDM?

EMDM has higher volatility (9.92%) compared to MEM (8.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEM dropped -19.10% vs EMDM's -18.81%.

Which ETF is better, MEM or EMDM?

On 3-year performance, EMDM leads with 28.08% vs 19.44% for MEM. On fees, EMDM is cheaper at 0.75% per year. 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 EMDM?

Over the 3-year period, EMDM has performed better with a 28.08% return vs 19.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEM or EMDM?

EMDM is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MEM.

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

MEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.97%, compared with 2.95% for EMDM.

What is the main difference between MEM and EMDM?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MEM and 0.75% for EMDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 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.