MEM vs. FRDM

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MEM (Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF) and FRDM (Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. MEM is actively managed, while FRDM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MEM returned 19.44%/yr vs 30.40%/yr for FRDM. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. MEM charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for FRDM.

Performance

MEM vs. FRDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM). 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 FRDM's 28.77% 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%

FRDM

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: -4.38%
• 6M: 13.38%
• YTD: 28.77%
• 1Y: 66.33%
• 3Y*: 30.40%
• 5Y*: 16.95%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.96%

*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)
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	$21.61M	$20.26M	$24.83M
MEM Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF	$115.09K	$118.00K	$130.93K

MEM vs. FRDM - 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%
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	28.77%	61.27%	1.70%	22.77%	6.23%

Correlation

The correlation between MEM and FRDM 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.	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2022	0.85

The correlation between MEM and FRDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

MEM vs. FRDM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEM	FRDM
Technology	45.6%	8.5%
Financial Services	23.8%	15.3%
Industrials	7.8%	0.3%
Basic Materials	7.7%	3.4%
Consumer Cyclical	6.8%	3.6%
Communication Services	4.3%	0.3%
Energy	2.0%	1.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	0.9%
Healthcare	0.6%	0.1%
Real Estate	-	2.3%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

MEM vs. FRDM — 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

FRDM

FRDM Risk / Return Rank: 85
FRDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
FRDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
FRDM Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FRDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FRDM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. FRDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) and Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM). 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	FRDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	2.18	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.08	2.67	-0.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.38	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.59	3.47	-0.88
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.35	11.41	-4.05

MEM vs. FRDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is lower than the FRDM Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEM and FRDM, 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. FRDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEM drawdown since its inception was -19.10%, smaller than the maximum FRDM drawdown of -40.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEM and FRDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEM	FRDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.10%	-40.49%	+21.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.62%	-19.24%	+4.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.10%	-19.24%	+0.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.25%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.45%	-13.71%	+4.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.84%	-7.13%	+2.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.13%	5.83%	-0.70%

Volatility

MEM vs. FRDM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Active ETF (MEM) is 8.36%, while Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) has a volatility of 12.19%. This indicates that MEM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FRDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEM	FRDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.36%	12.19%	-3.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.33%	28.38%	-6.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.98%	30.71%	-5.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.36%	22.39%	-3.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.36%	23.62%	-4.26%

MEM vs. FRDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEM has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than FRDM's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEM vs. FRDM - Dividend Comparison

MEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.97%, more than FRDM's 1.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	1.68%	2.26%	2.53%	2.66%	2.72%	2.17%	1.11%	1.07%
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 FRDM in my portfolio?

MEM and FRDM have a correlation of 0.90, 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 FRDM?

FRDM has higher volatility (12.19%) compared to MEM (8.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEM dropped -19.10% vs FRDM's -40.49%.

Which ETF is better, MEM or FRDM?

On 3-year performance, FRDM leads with 30.40% vs 19.44% for MEM. On fees, FRDM is cheaper at 0.49% 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 FRDM?

Over the 3-year period, FRDM has performed better with a 30.40% 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 FRDM?

FRDM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MEM.

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

MEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.97%, compared with 1.68% for FRDM.

What is the main difference between MEM and FRDM?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Freedom Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MEM and 0.49% for FRDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FRDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 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.