Skip to content
Beacon
Screener

EMSF vs GEM

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF vs Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF

EMSF

Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF

Annual cost

0.79%

Fund size

$46M

GEM

Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta Emerging Markets Equity ETF

Annual cost

0.35%

Fund size

$1.7B

Key differences

Both EMSF and GEM are equity ETFs. EMSF charges 0.79% a year and GEM 0.35%. The main difference: EMSF follows a active selection strategy; GEM uses index enhanced.

  • EMSF follows a active selection strategy; GEM uses index enhanced.
  • GEM costs 0.44% less per year.
  • GEM is much larger than EMSF. Larger funds are usually more liquid and less likely to close.
  • GEM has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.

Side-by-side comparison

EMSFGEM
Annual cost (TER)0.79%0.35%
Fund size (AUM)$46M$1.7B
Since20232015
Dividend yield4.76%1.85%
Asset classequityequity
Regionemerging marketsemerging markets
Strategyactive selectionindex enhanced
CAGR 1Y+57.5%+41.2%
CAGR 3YN/A+21.9%
CAGR 5YN/A+6.6%
Sharpe 3YN/A1.00
Volatility 1Y25.56%20.62%
Max drawdown-24.75%-37.02%

Similar to EMSF and GEM