MFEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MFEM (PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. MFEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, MFEM returned 30.01% vs 42.52% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. MFEM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

MFEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) 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, MFEM achieves a 16.47% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 30.73% return.

MFEM

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: -2.90%
• 6M: 6.30%
• YTD: 16.47%
• 1Y: 30.01%
• 3Y*: 15.79%
• 5Y*: 7.21%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.85%

EMSF

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: -8.36%
• 6M: 17.49%
• YTD: 30.73%
• 1Y: 42.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 15.92%

*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)
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	$80.02K	$93.23K	$184.42K
MFEM PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$581.34K	$458.22K	$623.99K

MFEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MFEM PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF	16.47%	25.33%	4.73%	7.32%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between MFEM and EMSF is 0.85, 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.	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.83

The correlation between MFEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

MFEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MFEM	EMSF
Technology	34.0%	52.8%
Financial Services	14.4%	15.0%
Basic Materials	13.1%	-
Industrials	10.1%	11.0%
Energy	7.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.0%	6.3%
Communication Services	4.4%	1.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.4%	3.6%
Utilities	3.3%	2.1%
Healthcare	1.4%	6.0%
Real Estate	1.0%	1.6%

Return for Risk

MFEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

MFEM

MFEM Risk / Return Rank: 53
MFEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
MFEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
MFEM Omega Ratio Rank: 56
MFEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
MFEM Martin Ratio Rank: 50

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 57
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

MFEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) 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.

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.

	MFEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	1.36	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.82	1.86	-0.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.25	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.97	2.10	-0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.82	7.05	-1.23

MFEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MFEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MFEM 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.

Drawdowns

MFEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MFEM drawdown since its inception was -43.32%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	MFEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.32%	-24.75%	-18.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.05%	-19.49%	+4.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.22%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.43%	-15.62%	+3.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.43%	-5.91%	-5.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.08%	5.80%	-0.72%

Volatility

MFEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) is 7.50%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.79%. This indicates that MFEM 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

	MFEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.50%	10.79%	-3.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.84%	26.54%	-5.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.65%	30.10%	-7.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.42%	24.40%	-6.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.70%	24.40%	-4.70%

MFEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

MFEM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

MFEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

MFEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.37%, more than EMSF's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MFEM PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF	2.37%	2.77%	5.89%	4.01%	7.01%	29.96%	1.70%	2.37%	1.18%	0.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MFEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

MFEM and EMSF have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MFEM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to MFEM (7.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MFEM dropped -43.32% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, MFEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 42.52% vs 30.01% for MFEM. On fees, MFEM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, MFEM has been the lower-risk option at 7.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MFEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 42.52% return vs 30.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MFEM or EMSF?

MFEM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

MFEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.37%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between MFEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MFEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 1.31), 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.