RNEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RNEM (First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. RNEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, RNEM returned 9.33% vs 42.52% for EMSF. Their 0.71 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RNEM charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

RNEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) 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, RNEM achieves a 3.95% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 30.73% return.

RNEM

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 4.02%
• 6M: 1.40%
• YTD: 3.95%
• 1Y: 9.33%
• 3Y*: 6.73%
• 5Y*: 5.70%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.46%

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
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	$35.85K	$33.48K	$54.35K

RNEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	3.95%	15.58%	-1.47%	7.21%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between RNEM and EMSF is 0.69, 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.	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.71

The correlation between RNEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

RNEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RNEM	EMSF
Financial Services	36.0%	15.0%
Basic Materials	13.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	6.3%
Communication Services	8.5%	1.7%
Energy	6.5%	-
Technology	6.5%	52.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	3.6%
Healthcare	4.5%	6.0%
Industrials	4.1%	11.0%
Utilities	3.4%	2.1%
Real Estate	0.8%	1.6%

Return for Risk

RNEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNEM

RNEM Risk / Return Rank: 29
RNEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
RNEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
RNEM Omega Ratio Rank: 29
RNEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
RNEM Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

RNEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) 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.

	RNEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.75	1.36	-0.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.14	1.86	-0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.25	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.87	2.10	-1.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.31	7.05	-4.74

RNEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNEM Sharpe Ratio is 0.75, which is lower than the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNEM 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

RNEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNEM drawdown since its inception was -38.38%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.38%	-24.75%	-13.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.71%	-19.49%	+8.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.09%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.41%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.33%	-15.62%	+13.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.23%	-5.91%	-3.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.04%	5.80%	-1.76%

Volatility

RNEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF (RNEM) is 3.15%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.79%. This indicates that RNEM 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

	RNEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.15%	10.79%	-7.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.89%	26.54%	-15.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.51%	30.10%	-17.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.47%	24.40%	-9.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.14%	24.40%	-7.26%

RNEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNEM has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

RNEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.28%, 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%
RNEM First Trust Emerging Markets Equity Select ETF	2.28%	2.75%	3.45%	1.63%	2.99%	3.20%	3.01%	2.85%	2.85%	2.28%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

RNEM and EMSF have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RNEM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.79%) compared to RNEM (3.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNEM dropped -38.38% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, RNEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 42.52% vs 9.33% for RNEM. On fees, RNEM is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, RNEM has been the lower-risk option at 3.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RNEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 42.52% return vs 9.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNEM or EMSF?

RNEM is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

RNEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.28%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between RNEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RNEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 0.75), 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.