EMSF vs VTI
Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF vs Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF
Which is better, EMSF or VTI?
All Cap Blend against Large Cap Blend.
VTI has a lower expense ratio. EMSF led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.7%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | EMSF | VTI |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.03%Best |
| AUM | $45M | $690.1B |
| Dividend Yield | 1.35% | 1.03% |
| Holdings | 58 | 3,524 |
| YTD Return | +31.89%Best | +14.35% |
| 1Y Return | +33.35%Best | +17.97% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.16% | +22.47%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +12.62% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 22.1% | 12.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -24.8% | -19.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.1 years | $16,115 | $18,703Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 49.7% | 33.3%Best |
| Fund Family | Matthews Asia Funds | Vanguard (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | All Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 21, 2023 | May 24, 2001 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.1 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 22, 2023 to Oct 13, 2026 (3.1 years).
EMSF vs VTI growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 3.1 years both funds cover.
EMSF vs VTI Performance
Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) is an ETF from Matthews Asia Funds and Vanguard Morningstar Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) is an ETF from Vanguard (US). Over the past year EMSF returned +33.35% while VTI returned +17.97%. Year to date, EMSF is up 31.89% versus a gain of 14.35% for VTI.
Over three years, EMSF compounded at +17.16% per year against +22.47% for VTI.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
EMSF has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.1% compared with 12.7% for VTI. 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 -19.3% for VTI. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.56. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
EMSF charges 0.79% per year while VTI 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 1.35% against 1.03% for VTI.
Holdings Overlap
1.6% of EMSF's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.5% of VTI's money is in holdings EMSF also owns.
EMSF and VTI share little of their money.
The two holdings books were reported 46 days apart, EMSF as of Sep 15, 2026 and VTI as of Jul 31, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
1 positions in common, counted across the 57 positions we hold weights for in EMSF and 3,463 in VTI, against full books of 58 and 3,524.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,149 positions for VTI that do not appear in our book for EMSF (96.9% of the fund), and 3 for EMSF that do not appear in VTI (10.8%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in EMSF | Weight in VTI | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 1.56% | 0.51% | 1.05% |
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of EMSF and VTI you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, EMSF or VTI?
EMSF has an expense ratio of 0.79% while VTI charges 0.03%. VTI is the cheaper option, by $76 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, EMSF or VTI?
Over the past year EMSF returned +33.35% vs +17.97% for VTI, so EMSF leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, EMSF or VTI?
EMSF has been the more volatile fund at 22.1% annualized versus 12.7% for VTI. Worst drawdown: EMSF -24.8% vs VTI -19.3%.
Should I hold both EMSF and VTI?
EMSF and VTI have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between EMSF and VTI?
1.6% of EMSF's money is in holdings VTI also owns. 0.5% of VTI's is in holdings EMSF also owns. They hold 1 positions in common, counted across the 57 positions we hold weights for in EMSF and 3,463 in VTI.
Which pays a higher dividend, EMSF or VTI?
EMSF yields 1.35% while VTI yields 1.03%, so EMSF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is VTI better than EMSF?
VTI has a lower expense ratio. EMSF led over 1Y, VTI over 3Y and the full window. VTI is less concentrated, with 33.3% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 49.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.