PPEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

PPEM (Putnam Panagora ESG Emerging Markets Equity ETF -) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. PPEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Their correlation of 0.82 means they have usually moved in the same direction. PPEM charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

PPEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Putnam Panagora ESG Emerging Markets Equity ETF - (PPEM) and Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

PPEM

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

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

PPEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PPEM Putnam Panagora ESG Emerging Markets Equity ETF -	31.88%	35.39%	7.50%	7.92%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between PPEM and EMSF is 0.78, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.82

The correlation between PPEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

PPEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PPEM	EMSF
Technology	50.9%	52.8%
Financial Services	16.8%	15.0%
Communication Services	8.0%	1.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.7%	6.3%
Basic Materials	3.6%	-
Industrials	3.2%	11.0%
Healthcare	2.5%	6.0%
Energy	2.5%	-
Utilities	2.4%	2.1%
Real Estate	1.5%	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	1.0%	3.6%

Return for Risk

PPEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

PPEM

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

PPEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Putnam Panagora ESG Emerging Markets Equity ETF - (PPEM) 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.

	PPEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.36	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.86	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.25	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.10	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	7.05	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	PPEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-24.75%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-19.49%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-15.62%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-5.91%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	5.80%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	PPEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	10.79%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	26.54%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	30.10%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	24.40%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	24.40%	—

PPEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

PPEM has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

PPEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

PPEM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EMSF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
PPEM Putnam Panagora ESG Emerging Markets Equity ETF -	49.06%	6.05%	3.27%	1.94%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PPEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

PPEM and EMSF have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, PPEM or EMSF?

On fees, PPEM is cheaper at 0.61% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, PPEM or EMSF?

PPEM is cheaper with a 0.61% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

PPEM has the higher dividend yield at 49.06%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between PPEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Putnam and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PPEM and 0.79% for EMSF.