MEMS vs. PEMX

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MEMS (Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF) and PEMX (Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MEMS returned 30.31% vs 72.01% for PEMX. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MEMS charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for PEMX.

Performance

MEMS vs. PEMX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) and Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF (PEMX). 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 lower than PEMX's 38.90% return.

MEMS

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

PEMX

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 7.45%
• YTD: 38.90%
• 6M: 44.55%
• 1Y: 72.01%
• 3Y*: 34.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MEMS vs. PEMX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MEMS Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF	23.66%	11.12%	-5.68%
PEMX Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF	38.90%	34.01%	19.41%

Correlation

The correlation between MEMS and PEMX is 0.81, 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	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2024	0.74

The correlation between MEMS and PEMX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

MEMS vs. PEMX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEMS	PEMX
Technology	31.3%	45.0%
Financial Services	16.2%	24.4%
Industrials	16.0%	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	12.0%	4.2%
Healthcare	8.4%	1.9%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	1.2%
Real Estate	3.4%	0.9%
Energy	3.2%	-
Communication Services	2.8%	6.6%
Basic Materials	1.4%	2.8%
Utilities	1.0%	4.5%

Return for Risk

MEMS vs. PEMX — 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

PEMX

PEMX Risk / Return Rank: 90
PEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
PEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
PEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 90
PEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
PEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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. PEMX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) and Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF (PEMX). 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	PEMX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.45	3.36	-1.91
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.05	4.15	-2.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.57	-0.31
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.33	5.01	-2.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.52	19.75	-12.22
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. PEMX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.45, which is lower than the PEMX Sharpe Ratio of 3.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEMS and PEMX, 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	PEMX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.45	3.36	-1.91
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	1.96	-1.36

Drawdowns

MEMS vs. PEMX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEMS drawdown since its inception was -22.24%, which is greater than PEMX's maximum drawdown of -14.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEMS and PEMX.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEMS	PEMX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.24%	-14.91%	-7.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.05%	-14.45%	+1.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.94%	-1.67%	-0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.22%	-2.84%	-2.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.04%	3.66%	+0.38%

Volatility

MEMS vs. PEMX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) is 7.34%, while Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF (PEMX) has a volatility of 9.60%. This indicates that MEMS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PEMX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEMS	PEMX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.34%	9.60%	-2.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.64%	18.77%	-1.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.98%	21.54%	-0.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.42%	18.18%	+1.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.42%	18.18%	+1.24%

MEMS vs. PEMX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEMS has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than PEMX's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEMS vs. PEMX - Dividend Comparison

MEMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.27%, less than PEMX's 5.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
MEMS Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF	2.27%	2.81%	1.42%	0.00%
PEMX Putnam Emerging Markets Ex-China ETF	5.04%	7.00%	5.00%	0.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEMS and PEMX in my portfolio?

MEMS and PEMX have a correlation of 0.81, 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 PEMX?

PEMX has higher volatility (9.60%) compared to MEMS (7.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEMS dropped -22.24% vs PEMX's -14.91%.

Which ETF is better, MEMS or PEMX?

On 1-year performance, PEMX leads with 72.01% vs 30.31% for MEMS. On fees, PEMX is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, MEMS has been the lower-risk option at 7.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEMS or PEMX?

Over the 1-year period, PEMX has performed better with a 72.01% return vs 30.31%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEMS or PEMX?

PEMX is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MEMS.

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

PEMX has the higher dividend yield at 5.04%, compared with 2.27% for MEMS.

What is the main difference between MEMS and PEMX?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Putnam. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for MEMS and 0.85% for PEMX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PEMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.36 vs 1.45), 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.