OAEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

OAEM (OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, OAEM returned 64.40% vs 65.26% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. 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 37.57% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 46.95% return.

OAEM

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: 8.58%
• YTD: 37.57%
• 6M: 45.36%
• 1Y: 64.40%
• 3Y*: 21.64%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: 1.74%
• 1M: 10.89%
• YTD: 46.95%
• 6M: 41.41%
• 1Y: 65.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

OAEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	37.57%	26.67%	0.43%	9.57%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	46.95%	19.20%	-3.09%	1.88%

Correlation

The correlation between OAEM and EMSF is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2023	0.80

The correlation between OAEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

OAEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	OAEM	EMSF
Technology	41.6%	43.6%
Industrials	15.7%	15.0%
Financial Services	15.3%	16.6%
Basic Materials	7.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.0%	7.7%
Utilities	4.8%	2.8%
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	3.9%
Communication Services	2.8%	2.0%
Energy	2.7%	-
Healthcare	-	6.8%
Real Estate	-	1.6%

Return for Risk

OAEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

OAEM

OAEM Risk / Return Rank: 83
OAEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
OAEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
OAEM Omega Ratio Rank: 82
OAEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
OAEM Martin Ratio Rank: 87

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 76
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 73
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

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.

	OAEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.91	2.59	+0.31
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.62	3.22	+0.41
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.44	+0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.52	4.59	-0.07
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	18.91	15.38	+3.53
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

OAEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OAEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.91, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	OAEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.91	2.59	+0.31
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.14	1.00	+0.14

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	-14.63%	-14.57%	-0.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.05%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.86%	-5.73%	+1.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.50%	4.35%	-0.85%

Volatility

OAEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF (OAEM) is 7.98%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 9.85%. This indicates that OAEM 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

	OAEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.98%	9.85%	-1.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.78%	21.95%	-2.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.30%	25.33%	-3.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.55%	22.75%	-3.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.55%	22.75%	-3.20%

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 0.56%, less than EMSF's 1.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.28%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%
OAEM OneAscent Emerging Markets ETF	0.56%	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 0.84, 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 (9.85%) compared to OAEM (7.98%). 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, EMSF leads with 65.26% vs 64.40% for OAEM. On fees, EMSF is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, OAEM has been the lower-risk option at 7.98%. 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, EMSF has performed better with a 65.26% return vs 64.40%. 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 1.28%, compared with 0.56% 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 (2.90 vs 2.59), 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.