XCEM vs. EMSF

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

XCEM (Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF) and EMSF (Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds. XCEM is passively managed, while EMSF is actively managed. Over the past year, XCEM returned 46.19% vs 44.16% for EMSF. Their correlation of 0.83 means they have usually moved in the same direction. XCEM charges 0.16%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EMSF.

Performance

XCEM vs. EMSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) 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, XCEM achieves a 24.71% return, which is significantly lower than EMSF's 32.23% return.

XCEM

• 1D: 0.95%
• 1M: -5.51%
• 6M: 13.55%
• YTD: 24.71%
• 1Y: 46.19%
• 3Y*: 21.41%
• 5Y*: 9.92%
• 10Y*: 10.65%
• ALL TIME*: 11.40%

EMSF

• 1D: 1.15%
• 1M: -7.30%
• 6M: 18.36%
• YTD: 32.23%
• 1Y: 44.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 16.34%

*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	$153.53K	$123.94K	$184.31K
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	$7.04M	$7.53M	$9.61M

XCEM vs. EMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	24.71%	34.05%	0.42%	11.34%
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	32.23%	19.20%	-3.09%	0.98%

Correlation

The correlation between XCEM and EMSF is 0.93, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.83

The correlation between XCEM and EMSF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

XCEM vs. EMSF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XCEM	EMSF
Technology	50.4%	52.8%
Financial Services	17.2%	15.0%
Industrials	9.6%	11.0%
Basic Materials	5.2%	-
Consumer Cyclical	4.6%	6.3%
Communication Services	3.2%	1.7%
Energy	3.1%	-
Healthcare	2.3%	6.0%
Utilities	1.8%	2.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	3.6%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.6%

Return for Risk

XCEM vs. EMSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

XCEM

XCEM Risk / Return Rank: 72
XCEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
XCEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
XCEM Omega Ratio Rank: 77
XCEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
XCEM Martin Ratio Rank: 71

EMSF

EMSF Risk / Return Rank: 58
EMSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
EMSF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
EMSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
EMSF Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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.

XCEM vs. EMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) 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.

	XCEM	EMSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.76	1.48	+0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.30	1.98	+0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.27	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.55	2.28	+0.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.98	7.54	+1.44

XCEM vs. EMSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XCEM Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is comparable to the EMSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XCEM 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

XCEM vs. EMSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XCEM drawdown since its inception was -41.24%, which is greater than EMSF's maximum drawdown of -24.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XCEM and EMSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	XCEM	EMSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.24%	-24.75%	-16.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.20%	-19.49%	+1.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.57%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-41.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.95%	-14.65%	+1.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.58%	-5.92%	-2.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.16%	5.87%	-0.71%

Volatility

XCEM vs. EMSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF (XCEM) is 10.15%, while Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) has a volatility of 10.75%. This indicates that XCEM 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

	XCEM	EMSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.15%	10.75%	-0.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.63%	26.52%	-1.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.40%	30.13%	-3.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.09%	24.39%	-5.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.11%	24.39%	-4.28%

XCEM vs. EMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

XCEM has a 0.16% expense ratio, which is lower than EMSF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

XCEM vs. EMSF - Dividend Comparison

XCEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.61%, more than EMSF's 1.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMSF Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF	1.42%	1.88%	3.29%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XCEM Columbia EM Core ex-China ETF	2.61%	3.25%	2.76%	1.22%	2.42%	1.94%	1.63%	2.11%	2.70%	9.56%	1.24%	2.63%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XCEM and EMSF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, XCEM 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, XCEM or EMSF?

EMSF has higher volatility (10.75%) compared to XCEM (10.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XCEM dropped -41.24% vs EMSF's -24.75%.

Which ETF is better, XCEM or EMSF?

On 1-year performance, XCEM leads with 46.19% vs 44.16% for EMSF. On fees, XCEM is cheaper at 0.16% per year. On volatility, XCEM has been the lower-risk option at 10.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XCEM or EMSF?

Over the 1-year period, XCEM has performed better with a 46.19% return vs 44.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XCEM or EMSF?

XCEM is cheaper with a 0.16% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EMSF.

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

XCEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.61%, compared with 1.42% for EMSF.

What is the main difference between XCEM and EMSF?

They also come from different issuers: Columbia and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.16% for XCEM and 0.79% for EMSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XCEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 vs 1.48), 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.