MEMS vs. RNEM

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

MEMS (Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF) and RNEM (First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. MEMS is actively managed, while RNEM is passively managed. Over the past year, MEMS returned 22.43% vs 9.51% for RNEM. Their 0.71 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. MEMS charges 0.89%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNEM.

Performance

MEMS vs. RNEM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MEMS achieves a 20.04% return, which is significantly higher than RNEM's 4.39% return.

MEMS

• 1D: 3.08%
• 1M: -3.07%
• 6M: 12.20%
• YTD: 20.04%
• 1Y: 22.43%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.53%

RNEM

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 4.45%
• 6M: 0.76%
• YTD: 4.39%
• 1Y: 9.51%
• 3Y*: 7.58%
• 5Y*: 5.80%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.50%

*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)
MEMS Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF	$27.68K	$28.35K	$30.35K
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	$33.98K	$31.08K	$54.80K

MEMS vs. RNEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MEMS Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF	20.04%	11.12%	-5.32%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	4.39%	15.58%	0.69%

Correlation

The correlation between MEMS and RNEM is 0.73, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.71

The correlation between MEMS and RNEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

MEMS vs. RNEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEMS	RNEM
Technology	34.1%	6.5%
Financial Services	16.5%	36.0%
Industrials	15.7%	4.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.4%	10.0%
Healthcare	8.3%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	5.9%
Communication Services	2.7%	8.5%
Real Estate	2.2%	0.8%
Energy	2.0%	6.5%
Basic Materials	1.4%	13.8%
Utilities	1.0%	3.4%

Return for Risk

MEMS vs. RNEM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

MEMS

MEMS Risk / Return Rank: 37
MEMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
MEMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
MEMS Omega Ratio Rank: 35
MEMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
MEMS Martin Ratio Rank: 39

RNEM

RNEM Risk / Return Rank: 27
RNEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
RNEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
RNEM Omega Ratio Rank: 27
RNEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
RNEM Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

MEMS vs. RNEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) and First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM). 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.

	MEMS	RNEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.98	0.76	+0.22
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.47	1.16	+0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.14	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.69	0.89	+0.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.73	2.36	+2.37

MEMS vs. RNEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEMS Sharpe Ratio is 0.98, which is comparable to the RNEM Sharpe Ratio of 0.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEMS and RNEM, 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

MEMS vs. RNEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEMS drawdown since its inception was -22.24%, smaller than the maximum RNEM drawdown of -38.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEMS and RNEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEMS	RNEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.24%	-38.38%	+16.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.29%	-10.71%	-2.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.09%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.41%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.80%	-1.92%	-3.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.24%	-9.22%	+3.98%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.76%	4.04%	+0.72%

Volatility

MEMS vs. RNEM - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF (MEMS) has a higher volatility of 8.18% compared to First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) at 2.91%. This indicates that MEMS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RNEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEMS	RNEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.18%	2.91%	+5.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.68%	10.79%	+9.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.97%	12.49%	+10.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.18%	14.47%	+5.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.18%	17.13%	+3.05%

MEMS vs. RNEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEMS has a 0.89% expense ratio, which is higher than RNEM's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEMS vs. RNEM - Dividend Comparison

MEMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.34%, more than RNEM's 2.27% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MEMS Matthews Emerging Markets Discovery Active ETF	2.34%	2.81%	1.42%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	2.27%	2.75%	3.45%	1.63%	2.99%	3.20%	3.01%	2.85%	2.85%	2.28%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEMS and RNEM in my portfolio?

MEMS and RNEM have a correlation of 0.73, 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 RNEM?

MEMS has higher volatility (8.18%) compared to RNEM (2.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEMS dropped -22.24% vs RNEM's -38.38%.

Which ETF is better, MEMS or RNEM?

On 1-year performance, MEMS leads with 22.43% vs 9.51% for RNEM. On fees, RNEM is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, RNEM has been the lower-risk option at 2.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEMS or RNEM?

Over the 1-year period, MEMS has performed better with a 22.43% return vs 9.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEMS or RNEM?

RNEM is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.89% for MEMS.

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

MEMS has the higher dividend yield at 2.34%, compared with 2.27% for RNEM.

What is the main difference between MEMS and RNEM?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.89% for MEMS and 0.75% for RNEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MEMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.98 vs 0.76), 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.