RWEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RWEM (Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. RWEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, RWEM returned 37.77% vs 42.52% for EMSF. Their 0.57 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RWEM charges 0.52%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

RWEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF (RWEM) 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, RWEM achieves a 18.79% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 30.73% return.

RWEM

• 1D: 4.75%
• 1M: 2.58%
• 6M: 12.70%
• YTD: 18.79%
• 1Y: 37.77%
• 3Y*: 19.87%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.53%

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
RWEM Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF	$318.11K	$309.19K	$568.12K

RWEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RWEM Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF	18.79%	28.17%	7.24%	10.87%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	30.73%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between RWEM and EMSF is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.57

The correlation between RWEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.48 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

RWEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RWEM	EMSF
Technology	41.1%	52.8%
Financial Services	18.1%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	6.3%
Communication Services	7.9%	1.7%
Industrials	5.1%	11.0%
Basic Materials	4.7%	-
Energy	4.1%	-
Healthcare	3.7%	6.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	3.6%
Utilities	2.1%	2.1%
Real Estate	0.3%	1.6%

Return for Risk

RWEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

RWEM

RWEM Risk / Return Rank: 48
RWEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
RWEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
RWEM Omega Ratio Rank: 42
RWEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
RWEM Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

RWEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF (RWEM) 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.

	RWEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	1.36	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.47	1.86	-0.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.25	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.34	2.10	+0.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.05	7.05	-1.00

RWEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RWEM Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RWEM 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

RWEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RWEM drawdown since its inception was -26.92%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RWEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	RWEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.92%	-24.75%	-2.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.39%	-19.49%	+4.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.26%	-15.62%	+7.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.58%	-5.91%	-3.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.93%	5.80%	+0.13%

Volatility

RWEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF (RWEM) has a higher volatility of 11.80% compared to Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) at 10.79%. This indicates that RWEM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EMSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RWEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.80%	10.79%	+1.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.65%	26.54%	+5.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.25%	30.10%	+7.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.91%	24.40%	-1.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.91%	24.40%	-1.49%

RWEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

RWEM has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

RWEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

RWEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, more than EMSF's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.44%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%
RWEM Rayliant Wilshire NxtGen Emerging Markets Equity ETF	1.81%	2.15%	3.59%	1.60%	5.59%	0.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RWEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

RWEM and EMSF have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RWEM or EMSF?

RWEM has higher volatility (11.80%) compared to EMSF (10.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RWEM dropped -26.92% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, RWEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 42.52% vs 37.77% for RWEM. On fees, RWEM is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, EMSF has been the lower-risk option at 10.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RWEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 42.52% return vs 37.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RWEM or EMSF?

RWEM is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

RWEM has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 1.44% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between RWEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Rayliant and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for RWEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 0.97), 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.