EMSF vs. PGJ ETF Comparison
Comparison of Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF (EMSF) to PowerShares Golden Dragon China Portfolio (PGJ)
EMSF
Matthews Emerging Markets Sustainable Future Active ETF
EMSF Description
EMSF actively invests in common and preferred stocks of companies in emerging markets, including countries that may be considered frontier. While the fund has an all-cap exposure, it expects to invest substantially in smaller companies. The fund looks for sustainable growth based on fundamental characteristics such as balance sheet information, size, cash flow stability, and financial health. It also applies various ESG standards, using third-party data and the adviser's proprietary research, to identify investments that potentially contribute to a sustainable future by addressing global environmental and social challenges. The fund also employs exclusionary ESG screens, which avoid controversial businesses such as tobacco, weapons, and fossil fuels. The fund may engage its portfolio companies on sustainability and governance matters through active dialogue, exercising shareholder rights, and encouraging enhanced ESG disclosure.
Grade (RS Rating)
Last Trade
$25.90
Average Daily Volume
2,344
3
PGJ
PowerShares Golden Dragon China Portfolio
PGJ Description
The PowerShares Golden Dragon China Portfolio (Fund) is based on the NASDAQ Golden Dragon China Index (Index). The Fund generally will invest at least 90% of its total assets in equity securities of companies deriving a majority of their revenues from the People’s Republic of China and that comprise the Underlying Index. The Underlying Index is composed of US exchange-listed companies that are headquartered or incorporated in the People’s Republic of China. The Fund and the Index are rebalanced and reconstituted quarterly.Grade (RS Rating)
Last Trade
$25.54
Average Daily Volume
192,476
54
Performance
| Period | EMSF | PGJ |
|---|---|---|
| 30 Days | -5.32% | -5.37% |
| 60 Days | -1.33% | 13.12% |
| 90 Days | 0.02% | 17.78% |
| 12 Months | 0.96% | 2.29% |
1 Overlapping Holdings
| Symbol | Grade | Weight in EMSF | Weight in PGJ | Overlap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YMM | C | 5.31% | 3.11% | 3.11% |
EMSF Underweight 53 Positions Relative to PGJ
| Symbol | Grade | Weight | |
|---|---|---|---|
| YUMC | C | -9.52% | |
| TCOM | B | -8.84% | |
| JD | D | -8.37% | |
| BABA | D | -7.56% | |
| BIDU | F | -6.21% | |
| BEKE | D | -4.54% | |
| NTES | D | -3.64% | |
| TME | D | -3.6% | |
| ZTO | F | -3.39% | |
| NIO | F | -3.36% | |
| VIPS | F | -3.32% | |
| HTHT | D | -3.26% | |
| LI | F | -2.65% | |
| BZ | F | -2.57% | |
| QFIN | A | -2.33% | |
| TAL | F | -2.25% | |
| XPEV | C | -1.55% | |
| GDS | C | -1.34% | |
| BILI | D | -1.27% | |
| ATAT | C | -1.18% | |
| ATHM | C | -1.06% | |
| DQ | F | -0.87% | |
| ZLAB | C | -0.77% | |
| MOMO | D | -0.68% | |
| RLX | C | -0.67% | |
| IQ | F | -0.67% | |
| FINV | B | -0.65% | |
| MNSO | D | -0.53% | |
| JKS | F | -0.48% | |
| CSIQ | F | -0.45% | |
| EH | D | -0.45% | |
| WB | D | -0.44% | |
| TIGR | D | -0.43% | |
| DDL | C | -0.34% | |
| VNET | B | -0.28% | |
| QD | B | -0.27% | |
| LX | B | -0.26% | |
| SOHU | F | -0.25% | |
| NOAH | D | -0.24% | |
| GOTU | F | -0.23% | |
| KC | B | -0.19% | |
| RERE | C | -0.18% | |
| HUYA | F | -0.17% | |
| API | B | -0.15% | |
| DAO | B | -0.11% | |
| DOYU | C | -0.11% | |
| TUYA | D | -0.11% | |
| WDH | F | -0.1% | |
| DADA | F | -0.09% | |
| BZUN | F | -0.07% | |
| CAAS | C | -0.07% | |
| NIU | F | -0.06% | |
| CBAT | F | -0.05% |
EMSF: Top Represented Industries & Keywords
PGJ: Top Represented Industries & Keywords
Compare ETFs
