Screener
EEMA vs MEMX
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF vs Matthews Emerging Markets Ex China Active ETF
Key differences
- EEMA costs 0.30% less per year.
- EEMA is significantly larger than MEMX — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- EEMA follows a index tracking strategy; MEMX uses active selection.
- Over the last 3 years, MEMX has delivered higher annualized returns.
- EEMA has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| EEMA | MEMX | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.49% | 0.79% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $1.3B | $45M |
| Since | 2012 | 2023 |
| Dividend yield | 1.28% | 1.72% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | emerging markets | emerging markets |
| Strategy | index tracking | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | +46.6% | +62.2% |
| CAGR 3Y | +22.4% | +25.6% |
| CAGR 5Y | +7.1% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.95 | 1.20 |
| Volatility 1Y | 19.95% | 21.07% |
| Max drawdown | -44.18% | -19.27% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to EEMA and MEMX
Explore further