MEMX vs. BKEM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MEMX (Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF) and BKEM (BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. MEMX is actively managed, while BKEM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MEMX returned 20.99%/yr vs 18.26%/yr for BKEM. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. MEMX charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.11%/yr for BKEM.

Performance

MEMX vs. BKEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF (MEMX) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with MEMX having a 20.25% return and BKEM slightly lower at 19.49%.

MEMX

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: -5.81%
• 6M: 10.01%
• YTD: 20.25%
• 1Y: 45.59%
• 3Y*: 20.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.15%

BKEM

• 1D: 1.00%
• 1M: -2.28%
• 6M: 10.09%
• YTD: 19.49%
• 1Y: 36.07%
• 3Y*: 18.26%
• 5Y*: 7.27%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.53%

*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)
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$479.81K	$325.26K	$242.87K
MEMX Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF	$126.06K	$154.77K	$150.51K

MEMX vs. BKEM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MEMX Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF	20.25%	35.88%	5.50%	11.33%
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	19.49%	30.55%	7.53%	2.34%

Correlation

The correlation between MEMX and BKEM 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.	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023	0.85

The correlation between MEMX and BKEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

MEMX vs. BKEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MEMX	BKEM
Technology	52.1%	44.5%
Financial Services	21.4%	17.5%
Consumer Cyclical	7.2%	7.7%
Industrials	7.1%	7.6%
Basic Materials	2.9%	5.4%
Healthcare	2.6%	2.7%
Energy	2.0%	3.1%
Communication Services	1.7%	5.8%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	2.6%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.1%
Utilities	0.9%	2.0%

Return for Risk

MEMX vs. BKEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MEMX

MEMX Risk / Return Rank: 74
MEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
MEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
MEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 76
MEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
MEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 73

BKEM

BKEM Risk / Return Rank: 65
BKEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
BKEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
BKEM Omega Ratio Rank: 65
BKEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
BKEM Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

MEMX vs. BKEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF (MEMX) and BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM). 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.

	MEMX	BKEM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.70	1.48	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	1.99	+0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.27	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.68	2.54	+0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.02	7.83	+1.19

MEMX vs. BKEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEMX Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is comparable to the BKEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEMX and BKEM, 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

MEMX vs. BKEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEMX drawdown since its inception was -19.27%, smaller than the maximum BKEM drawdown of -39.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEMX and BKEM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEMX	BKEM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.27%	-39.48%	+20.21%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.84%	-13.91%	-2.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.27%	-18.38%	-0.89%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-33.28%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.57%	-9.52%	-3.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.66%	-15.76%	+12.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.99%	4.49%	+0.50%

Volatility

MEMX vs. BKEM - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF (MEMX) has a higher volatility of 9.83% compared to BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF (BKEM) at 9.22%. This indicates that MEMX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BKEM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEMX	BKEM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.83%	9.22%	+0.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.48%	21.85%	+2.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.49%	23.85%	+2.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.76%	19.61%	-0.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.76%	19.76%	-1.00%

MEMX vs. BKEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEMX has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than BKEM's 0.11% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEMX vs. BKEM - Dividend Comparison

MEMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.06%, more than BKEM's 1.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
BKEM BNY Mellon Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.96%	2.25%	2.76%	3.02%	3.15%	2.22%	1.78%
MEMX Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF	4.06%	4.88%	0.99%	1.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEMX and BKEM in my portfolio?

MEMX and BKEM 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, MEMX or BKEM?

MEMX has higher volatility (9.83%) compared to BKEM (9.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEMX dropped -19.27% vs BKEM's -39.48%.

Which ETF is better, MEMX or BKEM?

On 3-year performance, MEMX leads with 20.99% vs 18.26% for BKEM. On fees, BKEM is cheaper at 0.11% per year. On volatility, BKEM has been the lower-risk option at 9.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEMX or BKEM?

Over the 3-year period, MEMX has performed better with a 20.99% return vs 18.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEMX or BKEM?

BKEM is cheaper with a 0.11% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MEMX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MEMX or BKEM?

MEMX has the higher dividend yield at 4.06%, compared with 1.96% for BKEM.

What is the main difference between MEMX and BKEM?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and BNY Mellon. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MEMX and 0.11% for BKEM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MEMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.70 vs 1.48), 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.