PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lyxor MSCI China ESG Leaders Extra (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (ASIU.L) and Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASIU.L achieves a -6.40% return, which is significantly lower than FLXC.L's -5.84% return.


ASIU.L

1D
-2.86%
1M
-1.46%
YTD
-6.40%
6M
-7.45%
1Y
8.27%
3Y*
9.43%
5Y*
-6.81%
10Y*

FLXC.L

1D
-2.13%
1M
-3.08%
YTD
-5.84%
6M
-6.78%
1Y
9.25%
3Y*
10.66%
5Y*
-4.75%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
ASIU.L
Lyxor MSCI China ESG Leaders Extra (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc
-6.40%36.59%18.62%-16.23%-26.27%-23.38%6.66%1.36%
FLXC.L
Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF
-5.84%32.15%19.36%-12.74%-22.72%-20.67%31.22%16.03%

Correlation

The correlation between ASIU.L and FLXC.L is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.98

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.61

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 10, 2019

0.52

Over the past year, ASIU.L and FLXC.L have become more correlated (0.98) than their long-term average of 0.52, meaning their price movements have been converging.

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ASIU.L
FLXC.L

Consumer Cyclical

29.8%
30.8%

Communication Services

21.2%
23.6%

Financial Services

19.0%
15.5%

Technology

11.7%
9.3%

Healthcare

5.9%
6.0%

Industrials

4.4%
4.1%

Basic Materials

3.1%
2.3%

Consumer Defensive

2.8%
3.2%

Real Estate

1.5%
0.7%

Utilities

0.6%
1.8%

Energy

0.1%
2.4%

Consumer Cyclical

ASIU.L
29.8%
FLXC.L
30.8%

Communication Services

ASIU.L
21.2%
FLXC.L
23.6%

Financial Services

ASIU.L
19.0%
FLXC.L
15.5%

Technology

ASIU.L
11.7%
FLXC.L
9.3%

Healthcare

ASIU.L
5.9%
FLXC.L
6.0%

Industrials

ASIU.L
4.4%
FLXC.L
4.1%

Basic Materials

ASIU.L
3.1%
FLXC.L
2.3%

Consumer Defensive

ASIU.L
2.8%
FLXC.L
3.2%

Real Estate

ASIU.L
1.5%
FLXC.L
0.7%

Utilities

ASIU.L
0.6%
FLXC.L
1.8%

Energy

ASIU.L
0.1%
FLXC.L
2.4%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASIU.L
ASIU.L Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
ASIU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1515
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ASIU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1515
Sortino Ratio Rank
ASIU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1515
Omega Ratio Rank
ASIU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
ASIU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank

FLXC.L
FLXC.L Risk / Return Rank: 1616
Overall Rank
FLXC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1616
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLXC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1616
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLXC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1616
Omega Ratio Rank
FLXC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1616
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLXC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1515
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lyxor MSCI China ESG Leaders Extra (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (ASIU.L) and Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L). 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.


ASIU.LFLXC.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.10

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.08

1.10

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.45

0.59

-0.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.91

1.24

-0.33

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASIU.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is comparable to the FLXC.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASIU.L and FLXC.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ASIU.LFLXC.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.39

0.49

-0.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.30

-0.15

-0.15

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.22

0.09

-0.31

Drawdowns

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASIU.L drawdown since its inception was -64.71%, roughly equal to the maximum FLXC.L drawdown of -67.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASIU.L and FLXC.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ASIU.LFLXC.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.71%

-67.90%

+3.19%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-18.29%

-15.67%

-2.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.50%

-40.11%

+12.61%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-58.89%

-62.63%

+3.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-39.94%

-33.34%

-6.60%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-36.13%

-31.82%

-4.31%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

9.07%

7.43%

+1.64%

Volatility

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L - Volatility Comparison

Lyxor MSCI China ESG Leaders Extra (DR) UCITS ETF - Acc (ASIU.L) has a higher volatility of 8.90% compared to Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L) at 7.36%. This indicates that ASIU.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLXC.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ASIU.LFLXC.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.90%

7.36%

+1.54%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.57%

13.40%

+2.17%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.40%

18.83%

+2.57%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

40.98%

32.74%

+8.24%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

39.97%

30.65%

+9.32%

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASIU.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than FLXC.L's 0.19% expense ratio.


Dividends

ASIU.L vs. FLXC.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ASIU.L nor FLXC.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.98, ASIU.L and FLXC.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

On fees, FLXC.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLXC.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for ASIU.L.

Both ETFs track MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Amundi and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for ASIU.L and 0.19% for FLXC.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ASIU.L and FLXC.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer