EMSF vs IVV
Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF vs iShares Core S&P 500 ETF
Quick Verdict
IVV has a lower expense ratio. EMSF delivered stronger 1-year returns. IVV offers more diversification with 505 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EMSF | IVV | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.03% | |
| AUM | $43M | $865.2B | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.30% | 1.09% | |
| Holdings | 60 | 508 | |
| YTD Return | +32.66% | +13.43% | |
| 1Y Return | +46.37% | +22.61% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.96% | +21.47% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.26% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.6% | 15.1% | |
| Max Drawdown | -24.8% | -56.5% | |
| Fund Family | Matthews Asia Funds | iShares by BlackRock (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Sep 21, 2023 | May 15, 2000 |
EMSF vs IVV Performance
Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) is a ETF from Matthews Asia Funds and iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (IVV) is a ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year EMSF returned +46.37% while IVV returned +22.61%. Year to date, EMSF is up 32.66% versus a gain of 13.43% for IVV.
Over three years, EMSF compounded at +17.96% per year against +21.47% for IVV. Across the full 3-year window we track, EMSF has the edge at +17.96% annualized vs +7.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EMSF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.6% compared with 15.1% for IVV. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -24.8% for EMSF and -56.5% for IVV. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.56. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EMSF charges 0.79% per year while IVV charges 0.03%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $3 annually, a gap of $76 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, EMSF currently yields 1.30% against 1.09% for IVV.
Holdings Overlap
EMSF and IVV share 1 holdings out of 558 unique holdings combined, representing a 1.7% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in EMSF | Weight in IVV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MU | 3.60% | 1.69% | 1.91% |
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EMSF or IVV?
EMSF has an expense ratio of 0.79% while IVV charges 0.03%. IVV is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $76 per year of difference.
Which performed better, EMSF or IVV?
Over the past year EMSF returned +46.37% vs +22.61% for IVV, so EMSF leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (3 years), EMSF annualized +17.96% vs +7.03% for IVV. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, EMSF or IVV?
EMSF has been the more volatile fund at 22.6% annualized versus 15.1% for IVV. Worst drawdown: EMSF -24.8% vs IVV -56.5%.
Should I hold both EMSF and IVV?
EMSF and IVV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between EMSF and IVV?
EMSF and IVV share 1 common holdings with a 1.7% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 558 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, EMSF or IVV?
EMSF yields 1.30% while IVV yields 1.09%, so EMSF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.