MEMS vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

MEMS (Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds from Matthews. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MEMS returned 24.15% vs 48.66% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MEMS charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

MEMS vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MEMS achieves a 18.12% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 34.72% return.

MEMS

• 1D: -4.48%
• 1M: -6.31%
• YTD: 18.12%
• 6M: 18.65%
• 1Y: 24.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: -7.07%
• 1M: -5.69%
• YTD: 34.72%
• 6M: 29.75%
• 1Y: 48.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MEMS vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MEMS Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF	18.12%	11.12%	-5.68%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	34.72%	19.20%	-0.66%

Correlation

The correlation between MEMS and EMSF is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2024	0.89

The correlation between MEMS and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

MEMS vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEMS	EMSF
Technology	31.3%	43.6%
Financial Services	16.2%	16.6%
Industrials	16.0%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	12.0%	7.7%
Healthcare	8.4%	6.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	3.9%
Real Estate	3.4%	1.6%
Energy	3.2%	-
Communication Services	2.8%	2.0%
Basic Materials	1.4%	-
Utilities	1.0%	2.8%

Return for Risk

MEMS vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MEMS

MEMS Risk / Return Rank: 36
MEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
MEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
MEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 34
MEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
MEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 40

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 61
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) and Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF). 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	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	1.86	-0.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.63	2.39	-0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.34	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.86	3.36	-1.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.96	11.14	-5.18
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. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEMS and EMSF, 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	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.13	1.86	-0.73
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.81	-0.33

Drawdowns

MEMS vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEMS drawdown since its inception was -22.24%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEMS and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEMS	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.24%	-24.75%	+2.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.05%	-14.57%	+1.52%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.34%	-8.32%	+1.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.22%	-5.72%	+0.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.06%	4.38%	-0.32%

Volatility

MEMS vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) is 8.38%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 11.61%. This indicates that MEMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEMS	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.38%	11.61%	-3.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.26%	23.26%	-5.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.48%	26.35%	-4.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.62%	23.13%	-3.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.62%	23.13%	-3.51%

MEMS vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEMS has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEMS vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

MEMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.38%, more than EMSF's 1.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.40%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
MEMS Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF	2.38%	2.81%	1.42%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEMS and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, MEMS and EMSF 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, MEMS or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (11.61%) compared to MEMS (8.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEMS dropped -22.24% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, MEMS or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 48.66% vs 24.15% for MEMS. On fees, EMSF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, MEMS has been the lower-risk option at 8.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEMS or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 48.66% return vs 24.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEMS or EMSF?

EMSF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MEMS.

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

MEMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.38%, compared with 1.40% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between MEMS and EMSF?

Their fees differ too: 0.89% for MEMS and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 vs 1.13), 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.