ASIA vs. FLAU

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ASIA (Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF) and FLAU (Franklin FTSE Australia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. ASIA is actively managed, while FLAU is passively managed. Over the past year, ASIA returned 66.09% vs 16.61% for FLAU. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ASIA charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLAU.

Performance

ASIA vs. FLAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASIA achieves a 33.47% return, which is significantly higher than FLAU's 10.47% return.

ASIA

• 1D: -1.35%
• 1M: 11.70%
• YTD: 33.47%
• 6M: 38.00%
• 1Y: 66.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLAU

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: 1.12%
• YTD: 10.47%
• 6M: 12.59%
• 1Y: 16.61%
• 3Y*: 12.97%
• 5Y*: 5.98%
• 10Y*: —

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

ASIA vs. FLAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	33.47%	32.06%	3.41%	0.01%
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF	10.47%	15.95%	1.81%	13.83%

Correlation

The correlation between ASIA and FLAU is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2023	0.64

The correlation between ASIA and FLAU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

ASIA vs. FLAU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ASIA	FLAU
Technology	46.6%	1.2%
Financial Services	17.6%	36.0%
Industrials	11.6%	6.4%
Consumer Cyclical	7.5%	6.6%
Communication Services	5.1%	1.7%
Healthcare	4.0%	4.9%
Real Estate	2.9%	6.4%
Basic Materials	2.5%	26.2%
Energy	2.1%	5.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	3.7%
Utilities	-	0.8%

Return for Risk

ASIA vs. FLAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASIA

ASIA Risk / Return Rank: 86
ASIA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
ASIA Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
ASIA Omega Ratio Rank: 88
ASIA Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
ASIA Martin Ratio Rank: 83

FLAU

FLAU Risk / Return Rank: 29
FLAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
FLAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
FLAU Omega Ratio Rank: 26
FLAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
FLAU Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

ASIA vs. FLAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) and Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU). 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.

	ASIA	FLAU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.08	1.00	+2.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	1.47	+2.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.55	1.18	+0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.59	1.67	+2.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.09	5.15	+11.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ASIA vs. FLAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASIA Sharpe Ratio is 3.08, which is higher than the FLAU Sharpe Ratio of 1.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASIA and FLAU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ASIA	FLAU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.08	1.00	+2.08
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.31	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.24	0.33	+0.91

Drawdowns

ASIA vs. FLAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASIA drawdown since its inception was -23.95%, smaller than the maximum FLAU drawdown of -45.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASIA and FLAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASIA	FLAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.95%	-45.73%	+21.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.47%	-10.01%	-4.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-22.03%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.35%	-3.11%	+1.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.85%	-6.79%	+1.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.88%	3.23%	+0.65%

Volatility

ASIA vs. FLAU - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) has a higher volatility of 9.93% compared to Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) at 5.45%. This indicates that ASIA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ASIA	FLAU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.93%	5.45%	+4.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.57%	13.66%	+4.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.56%	16.63%	+4.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.24%	19.61%	+0.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.24%	23.58%	-3.34%

ASIA vs. FLAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASIA has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than FLAU's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

ASIA vs. FLAU - Dividend Comparison

ASIA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, less than FLAU's 2.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	0.78%	1.05%	0.58%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF	2.94%	3.25%	3.37%	3.62%	5.91%	5.14%	2.18%	4.37%	4.34%	0.18%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ASIA and FLAU in my portfolio?

ASIA and FLAU have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ASIA or FLAU?

ASIA has higher volatility (9.93%) compared to FLAU (5.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASIA dropped -23.95% vs FLAU's -45.73%.

Which ETF is better, ASIA or FLAU?

On 1-year performance, ASIA leads with 66.09% vs 16.61% for FLAU. On fees, FLAU is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLAU has been the lower-risk option at 5.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ASIA or FLAU?

Over the 1-year period, ASIA has performed better with a 66.09% return vs 16.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ASIA or FLAU?

FLAU is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for ASIA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ASIA or FLAU?

FLAU has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 0.78% for ASIA.

What is the main difference between ASIA and FLAU?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ASIA and 0.09% for FLAU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ASIA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.08 vs 1.00), 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.