OAEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

OAEM (OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, OAEM returned 43.91% vs 42.52% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.81 means they have usually moved in the same direction. OAEM charges 1.25%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

OAEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF (OAEM) 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, OAEM achieves a 26.54% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 30.73% return.

OAEM

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: -2.87%
• 6M: 13.83%
• YTD: 26.54%
• 1Y: 43.91%
• 3Y*: 18.13%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 18.43%

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
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	$452.20K	$547.88K	$1.41M

OAEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	26.54%	26.67%	0.43%	10.46%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between OAEM and EMSF is 0.88, 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.	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.81

The correlation between OAEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

OAEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	OAEM	EMSF
Technology	45.0%	52.8%
Industrials	15.8%	11.0%
Financial Services	15.7%	15.0%
Basic Materials	7.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.1%	6.3%
Real Estate	3.9%	1.6%
Energy	3.1%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.1%	3.6%
Communication Services	1.3%	1.7%
Utilities	0.9%	2.1%
Healthcare	-	6.0%

Return for Risk

OAEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

OAEM

OAEM Risk / Return Rank: 70
OAEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
OAEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
OAEM Omega Ratio Rank: 68
OAEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
OAEM Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

OAEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF (OAEM) 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.

	OAEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	1.36	+0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.06	1.86	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.25	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.84	2.10	+0.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.24	7.05	+2.19

OAEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OAEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of OAEM 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

OAEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum OAEM drawdown since its inception was -17.05%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OAEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	OAEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.05%	-24.75%	+7.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.09%	-19.49%	+4.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.05%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.37%	-15.62%	+5.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.98%	-5.91%	+1.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.64%	5.80%	-1.16%

Volatility

OAEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF (OAEM) and Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) have volatilities of 10.55% and 10.79%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	OAEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.55%	10.79%	-0.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.40%	26.54%	-1.14%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.41%	30.10%	-2.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.93%	24.40%	-3.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.93%	24.40%	-3.47%

OAEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

OAEM has a 1.25% expense ratio, which is higher than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

OAEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

OAEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, less than EMSF's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	0.61%	0.77%	0.91%	1.63%	0.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both OAEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

OAEM and EMSF have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, OAEM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to OAEM (10.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OAEM dropped -17.05% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, OAEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, OAEM leads with 43.91% vs 42.52% for EMSF. On fees, EMSF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, OAEM has been the lower-risk option at 10.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, OAEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, OAEM has performed better with a 43.91% return vs 42.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, OAEM or EMSF?

EMSF is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.25% for OAEM.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 0.61% for OAEM.

What is the main difference between OAEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Oneascent and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 1.25% for OAEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

OAEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 1.36), 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.