ADIV vs. FLJH

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

ADIV (SmartETFs Asia Pacific Dividend Builder ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ADIV is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by Guinness Atkinson Asset Management, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. ADIV is actively managed, while FLJH is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ADIV returned 6.80%/yr vs 21.36%/yr for FLJH. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ADIV charges 0.78%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

ADIV vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SmartETFs Asia Pacific Dividend Builder ETF (ADIV) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ADIV achieves a 6.47% return, which is significantly lower than FLJH's 20.27% return.

ADIV

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: -1.15%
• 6M: 4.00%
• YTD: 6.47%
• 1Y: 9.40%
• 3Y*: 15.80%
• 5Y*: 6.80%
• 10Y*: —

FLJH

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: -0.89%
• 6M: 12.70%
• YTD: 20.27%
• 1Y: 44.73%
• 3Y*: 27.57%
• 5Y*: 21.36%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ADIV vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ADIV SmartETFs Asia Pacific Dividend Builder ETF	6.47%	21.86%	14.47%	12.28%	-18.00%	1.41%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	20.27%	25.26%	25.89%	36.02%	-2.75%	1.93%

Correlation

The correlation between ADIV and FLJH is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.41
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 29, 2021	0.48

ADIV vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ADIV	FLJH
Financial Services	31.8%	15.8%
Technology	26.6%	19.4%
Consumer Cyclical	15.4%	12.7%
Real Estate	8.3%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	4.0%
Healthcare	5.0%	5.5%
Communication Services	3.2%	8.0%
Utilities	2.4%	1.2%
Industrials	2.3%	25.2%
Basic Materials	-	4.4%
Energy	-	0.9%

Return for Risk

ADIV vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ADIV

ADIV Risk / Return Rank: 24
ADIV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
ADIV Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
ADIV Omega Ratio Rank: 22
ADIV Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
ADIV Martin Ratio Rank: 27

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 88
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 89

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ADIV vs. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SmartETFs Asia Pacific Dividend Builder ETF (ADIV) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ADIV	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.67	2.33	-1.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.02	3.11	-2.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.42	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.93	4.16	-3.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.88	15.64	-12.76

ADIV vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ADIV Sharpe Ratio is 0.67, which is lower than the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ADIV and FLJH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ADIV vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ADIV drawdown since its inception was -31.55%, roughly equal to the maximum FLJH drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ADIV and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	ADIV	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.55%	-31.51%	-0.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.15%	-10.80%	+0.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.53%	-20.39%	+1.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.55%	-20.39%	-11.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.60%	-4.01%	+1.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.33%	-5.27%	-3.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.27%	2.87%	+0.40%

Volatility

ADIV vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SmartETFs Asia Pacific Dividend Builder ETF (ADIV) is 4.33%, while Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) has a volatility of 6.77%. This indicates that ADIV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ADIV	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.33%	6.77%	-2.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.52%	15.03%	-3.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.06%	19.26%	-5.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.62%	18.72%	-2.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.38%	19.88%	-3.50%

ADIV vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

ADIV has a 0.78% expense ratio, which is higher than FLJH's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

ADIV vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

ADIV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.95%, more than FLJH's 2.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ADIV SmartETFs Asia Pacific Dividend Builder ETF	2.95%	2.77%	4.83%	4.55%	2.98%	13.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	2.50%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ADIV and FLJH in my portfolio?

ADIV and FLJH have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ADIV or FLJH?

FLJH has higher volatility (6.77%) compared to ADIV (4.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ADIV dropped -31.55% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, ADIV or FLJH?

On 5-year performance, FLJH leads with 21.36% vs 6.80% for ADIV. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, ADIV has been the lower-risk option at 4.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ADIV or FLJH?

Over the 5-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 21.36% return vs 6.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ADIV or FLJH?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.78% for ADIV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ADIV or FLJH?

ADIV has the higher dividend yield at 2.95%, compared with 2.50% for FLJH.

What is the main difference between ADIV and FLJH?

ADIV is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FLJH is Japan Equities. They also come from different issuers: Guinness Atkinson Asset Management and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.78% for ADIV and 0.09% for FLJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 0.67), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.