MEMX vs. JEMA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MEMX (Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF) and JEMA (JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MEMX is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund actively managed by Matthews, while JEMA is a Emerging Markets Equities fund actively managed by JPMorgan. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, MEMX returned 25.58%/yr vs 23.52%/yr for JEMA. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MEMX charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for JEMA.

Performance

MEMX vs. JEMA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MEMX achieves a 29.86% return, which is significantly higher than JEMA's 27.73% return.

MEMX

• 1D: -5.58%
• 1M: 3.50%
• YTD: 29.86%
• 6M: 31.95%
• 1Y: 62.81%
• 3Y*: 25.58%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

JEMA

• 1D: -5.53%
• 1M: 3.01%
• YTD: 27.73%
• 6M: 28.60%
• 1Y: 54.31%
• 3Y*: 23.52%
• 5Y*: 6.79%
• 10Y*: —

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

MEMX vs. JEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MEMX Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF	29.86%	35.88%	5.50%	11.33%
JEMA JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	27.73%	34.89%	5.68%	2.19%

Correlation

The correlation between MEMX and JEMA is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023	0.86

The correlation between MEMX and JEMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MEMX vs. JEMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

MEMX

MEMX Risk / Return Rank: 83
MEMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
MEMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
MEMX Omega Ratio Rank: 84
MEMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
MEMX Martin Ratio Rank: 85

JEMA

JEMA Risk / Return Rank: 80
JEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
JEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
JEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 81
JEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
JEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

MEMX vs. JEMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF (MEMX) and JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (JEMA). 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	JEMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.57	2.38	+0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.17	2.95	+0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.45	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.30	4.16	+0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.40	16.18	+0.22

MEMX vs. JEMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MEMX Sharpe Ratio is 2.57, which is comparable to the JEMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MEMX and JEMA, 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. JEMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MEMX drawdown since its inception was -19.27%, smaller than the maximum JEMA drawdown of -39.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MEMX and JEMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	MEMX	JEMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.27%	-39.50%	+20.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.70%	-13.11%	-1.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.27%	-18.11%	-1.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-39.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.58%	-5.53%	-0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.49%	-16.90%	+13.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.84%	3.37%	+0.47%

Volatility

MEMX vs. JEMA - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF (MEMX) has a higher volatility of 13.33% compared to JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF (JEMA) at 12.49%. This indicates that MEMX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than JEMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MEMX	JEMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.33%	12.49%	+0.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.43%	20.77%	+1.66%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.53%	22.96%	+1.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.15%	19.65%	-1.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.15%	19.43%	-1.28%

MEMX vs. JEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

MEMX has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than JEMA's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

MEMX vs. JEMA - Dividend Comparison

MEMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.76%, more than JEMA's 2.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
JEMA JPMorgan ActiveBuilders Emerging Markets Equity ETF	2.29%	2.93%	2.44%	2.95%	2.69%	1.54%
MEMX Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF	3.76%	4.88%	0.99%	1.13%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MEMX and JEMA in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, MEMX and JEMA 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, MEMX or JEMA?

MEMX has higher volatility (13.33%) compared to JEMA (12.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MEMX dropped -19.27% vs JEMA's -39.50%.

Which ETF is better, MEMX or JEMA?

On 3-year performance, MEMX leads with 25.58% vs 23.52% for JEMA. On fees, JEMA is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, JEMA has been the lower-risk option at 12.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MEMX or JEMA?

Over the 3-year period, MEMX has performed better with a 25.58% return vs 23.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MEMX or JEMA?

JEMA is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MEMX.

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

MEMX has the higher dividend yield at 3.76%, compared with 2.29% for JEMA.

What is the main difference between MEMX and JEMA?

MEMX is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while JEMA is Emerging Markets Equities. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MEMX and 0.39% for JEMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MEMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.57 vs 2.38), 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.