REMG vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

REMG (Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, REMG returned 48.86% vs 58.48% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. REMG charges 0.64%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

REMG vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG) 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, REMG achieves a 24.01% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 45.49% return.

REMG

• 1D: -5.46%
• 1M: 1.92%
• YTD: 24.01%
• 6M: 25.35%
• 1Y: 48.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: -6.10%
• 1M: 5.39%
• YTD: 45.49%
• 6M: 45.93%
• 1Y: 58.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

REMG vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
REMG Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF	24.01%	24.03%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.49%	12.18%

Correlation

The correlation between REMG and EMSF is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2025	0.93

The correlation between REMG and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

REMG vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

REMG

REMG Risk / Return Rank: 73
REMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
REMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
REMG Omega Ratio Rank: 74
REMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
REMG Martin Ratio Rank: 77

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 71
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 68
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

REMG vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG) 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.

	REMG	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	2.08	+0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	2.62	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.37	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.47	4.03	-0.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.33	13.14	+0.19

REMG vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current REMG Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of REMG 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

REMG vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum REMG drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for REMG and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	REMG	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.13%	-24.75%	+10.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.13%	-14.57%	+0.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.46%	-6.10%	+0.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-5.72%	+3.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.67%	4.46%	-0.79%

Volatility

REMG vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF (REMG) is 12.25%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 14.20%. This indicates that REMG 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

	REMG	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.25%	14.20%	-1.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.88%	24.49%	-3.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.12%	28.21%	-5.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.66%	23.87%	-1.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.66%	23.87%	-1.21%

REMG vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

REMG has a 0.64% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

REMG vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

REMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.11%, less than EMSF's 1.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.29%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%
REMG Russell Investments Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.11%	1.37%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both REMG and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, REMG and EMSF 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, REMG or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (14.20%) compared to REMG (12.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, REMG dropped -14.13% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, REMG or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 58.48% vs 48.86% for REMG. On fees, REMG is cheaper at 0.64% per year. On volatility, REMG has been the lower-risk option at 12.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, REMG or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 58.48% return vs 48.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, REMG or EMSF?

REMG is cheaper with a 0.64% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

EMSF has the higher dividend yield at 1.29%, compared with 1.11% for REMG.

What is the main difference between REMG and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Russell and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.64% for REMG and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

REMG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.12 vs 2.08), 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.