MEMS vs. CAOS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MEMS (Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MEMS is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Matthews, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MEMS returned 30.31% vs 1.85% for CAOS. At a correlation of -0.23, they often move in opposite directions. MEMS charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

MEMS vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MEMS achieves a 23.66% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.77% return.

MEMS

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: -0.11%
• YTD: 23.66%
• 6M: 23.51%
• 1Y: 30.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.05%
• YTD: 0.77%
• 6M: 0.63%
• 1Y: 1.85%
• 3Y*: 4.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MEMS vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MEMS Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF	23.66%	11.12%	-5.68%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.77%	2.55%	5.42%

Correlation

The correlation between MEMS and CAOS is -0.34, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2024	-0.23

The correlation between MEMS and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.34 (1 year) to -0.23 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MEMS vs. CAOS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEMS	CAOS
Technology	31.3%	33.1%
Financial Services	16.2%	12.4%
Industrials	16.0%	8.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.0%	10.0%
Healthcare	8.4%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	5.4%
Real Estate	3.4%	2.0%
Energy	3.2%	4.1%
Communication Services	2.8%	10.4%
Basic Materials	1.4%	1.9%
Utilities	1.0%	2.6%

Return for Risk

MEMS vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

MEMS

MEMS Risk / Return Rank: 44
MEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
MEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
MEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 41
MEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
MEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 47

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 40
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

MEMS vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	MEMS	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.45	1.22	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	1.94	+0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.25	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.33	2.45	-0.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.52	6.09	+1.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MEMS vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.45, which is comparable to the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEMS and CAOS, 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

	MEMS	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.45	1.22	+0.23
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	1.21	-0.61

Drawdowns

MEMS vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEMS drawdown since its inception was -22.24%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEMS and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEMS	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.24%	-3.60%	-18.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.05%	-0.76%	-12.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.94%	-1.11%	-0.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.22%	-0.90%	-4.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.04%	0.30%	+3.74%

Volatility

MEMS vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) has a higher volatility of 7.34% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.25%. This indicates that MEMS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEMS	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.34%	0.25%	+7.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.64%	1.03%	+16.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.98%	1.52%	+19.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.42%	4.25%	+15.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.42%	4.25%	+15.17%

MEMS vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEMS has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEMS vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

MEMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.27%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MEMS Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF	2.27%	2.81%	1.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEMS and CAOS in my portfolio?

MEMS and CAOS have a correlation of -0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MEMS or CAOS?

MEMS has higher volatility (7.34%) compared to CAOS (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEMS dropped -22.24% vs CAOS's -3.60%.

Which ETF is better, MEMS or CAOS?

On 1-year performance, MEMS leads with 30.31% vs 1.85% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEMS or CAOS?

Over the 1-year period, MEMS has performed better with a 30.31% return vs 1.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEMS or CAOS?

CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MEMS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MEMS or CAOS?

MEMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.27%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.

What is the main difference between MEMS and CAOS?

MEMS is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for MEMS and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MEMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.45 vs 1.22), 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.