XC vs. EMSF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XC (WisdomTree Emerging Markets ex-China Fund) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Diversified funds. XC is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, XC returned 8.33% vs 63.33% for EMSF. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XC charges 0.32%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

XC vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WisdomTree Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (XC) 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, XC achieves a -3.47% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 45.34% return.

XC

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: -1.76%
• YTD: -3.47%
• 6M: -2.10%
• 1Y: 8.33%
• 3Y*: 9.87%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMSF

• 1D: -1.10%
• 1M: 8.61%
• YTD: 45.34%
• 6M: 40.08%
• 1Y: 63.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

XC vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XC WisdomTree Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	-3.47%	18.19%	5.49%	11.71%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	45.34%	19.20%	-3.09%	1.88%

Correlation

The correlation between XC and EMSF is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2023	0.73

The correlation between XC and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

XC vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XC	EMSF
Financial Services	13.8%	16.6%
Basic Materials	7.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.8%	7.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	3.9%
Industrials	4.7%	15.0%
Communication Services	2.7%	2.0%
Energy	1.6%	-
Utilities	1.3%	2.8%
Real Estate	1.3%	1.6%
Technology	1.2%	43.6%
Healthcare	0.7%	6.8%

Return for Risk

XC vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

XC

XC Risk / Return Rank: 18
XC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
XC Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
XC Omega Ratio Rank: 17
XC Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
XC Martin Ratio Rank: 18

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 76
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

XC vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (XC) 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.

	XC	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.57	2.51	-1.95
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.91	3.14	-2.23
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.43	-0.32
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.67	4.37	-3.70
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.94	14.61	-12.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XC vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XC Sharpe Ratio is 0.57, which is lower than the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 2.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XC 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

	XC	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.57	2.51	-1.95
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.71	0.98	-0.26

Drawdowns

XC vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XC drawdown since its inception was -20.97%, smaller than the maximum EMSF drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XC and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	XC	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.97%	-24.75%	+3.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.47%	-14.57%	+2.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.97%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.35%	-1.10%	-8.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	-5.72%	+1.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.29%	4.35%	-0.06%

Volatility

XC vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for WisdomTree Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (XC) is 5.00%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 9.96%. This indicates that XC 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

	XC	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.00%	9.96%	-4.96%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.60%	21.98%	-9.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.78%	25.35%	-10.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.87%	22.75%	-6.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.87%	22.75%	-6.88%

XC vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

XC has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

XC vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

XC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 12.41%, more than EMSF's 1.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.30%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%
XC WisdomTree Emerging Markets ex-China Fund	12.41%	11.74%	1.49%	1.42%	0.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XC and EMSF in my portfolio?

XC and EMSF have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XC or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (9.96%) compared to XC (5.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XC dropped -20.97% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, XC or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, EMSF leads with 63.33% vs 8.33% for XC. On fees, XC is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, XC has been the lower-risk option at 5.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XC or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, EMSF has performed better with a 63.33% return vs 8.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XC or EMSF?

XC is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

XC has the higher dividend yield at 12.41%, compared with 1.30% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between XC and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for XC and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMSF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 0.57), 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.