ASIA vs. FLJH

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

ASIA (Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ASIA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund actively managed by Matthews, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. ASIA is actively managed, while FLJH is passively managed. Over the past year, ASIA returned 37.82% vs 44.73% for FLJH. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ASIA charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

ASIA vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) 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, ASIA achieves a 18.76% return, which is significantly lower than FLJH's 20.27% return.

ASIA

• 1D: -3.05%
• 1M: -8.90%
• 6M: 11.70%
• YTD: 18.76%
• 1Y: 37.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 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)

ASIA vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	18.76%	32.06%	3.41%	0.01%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	20.27%	25.26%	25.89%	2.82%

Correlation

The correlation between ASIA and FLJH is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.46

The correlation between ASIA and FLJH shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (all time) to 0.58 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ASIA vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ASIA	FLJH
Technology	60.2%	19.4%
Financial Services	16.2%	15.8%
Industrials	7.4%	25.2%
Communication Services	4.8%	8.0%
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	12.7%
Energy	2.5%	0.9%
Healthcare	2.5%	5.5%
Real Estate	1.7%	3.0%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	4.0%
Basic Materials	1.1%	4.4%
Utilities	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

ASIA vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASIA

ASIA Risk / Return Rank: 55
ASIA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
ASIA Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
ASIA Omega Ratio Rank: 55
ASIA Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
ASIA Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

ASIA vs. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	ASIA	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.42	2.33	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	3.11	-1.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.42	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.63	4.16	-1.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.99	15.64	-7.66

ASIA vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASIA Sharpe Ratio is 1.42, which is lower than the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASIA 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

ASIA vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASIA drawdown since its inception was -23.95%, smaller than the maximum FLJH drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASIA and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	ASIA	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.95%	-31.51%	+7.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.47%	-10.80%	-3.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.33%	-4.01%	-10.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.94%	-5.27%	+0.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.75%	2.87%	+1.88%

Volatility

ASIA vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF (ASIA) has a higher volatility of 12.91% compared to Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) at 6.77%. This indicates that ASIA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ASIA	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.91%	6.77%	+6.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.60%	15.03%	+9.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.79%	19.26%	+7.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.12%	18.72%	+3.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.12%	19.88%	+2.24%

ASIA vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

ASIA vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

ASIA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, less than FLJH's 2.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ASIA Matthews Pacific Tiger Active ETF	0.88%	1.05%	0.58%	0.12%	0.00%	0.00%	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 ASIA and FLJH in my portfolio?

ASIA and FLJH have a correlation of 0.58, 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 FLJH?

ASIA has higher volatility (12.91%) compared to FLJH (6.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASIA dropped -23.95% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, ASIA or FLJH?

On 1-year performance, FLJH leads with 44.73% vs 37.82% for ASIA. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 6.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ASIA or FLJH?

Over the 1-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 44.73% return vs 37.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ASIA or FLJH?

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

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

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 2.50%, compared with 0.88% for ASIA.

What is the main difference between ASIA and FLJH?

ASIA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FLJH is Japan Equities. They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for ASIA and 0.09% for FLJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.42), 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.