CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CEMA.L (iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc) and FLRK.L (Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - CEMA.L tracks the MSCI EM Asia Index Net while FLRK.L tracks the MSCI Korea NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEMA.L returned 8.33%/yr vs 19.36%/yr for FLRK.L. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CEMA.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLRK.L.

Performance

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) and Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF (FLRK.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CEMA.L is traded in USD, while FLRK.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the FLRK.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CEMA.L achieves a 32.32% return, which is significantly lower than FLRK.L's 110.66% return.

CEMA.L

• 1D: -1.33%
• 1M: 11.44%
• YTD: 32.32%
• 6M: 36.37%
• 1Y: 63.33%
• 3Y*: 26.83%
• 5Y*: 8.33%
• 10Y*: 11.62%

FLRK.L

• 1D: -5.01%
• 1M: 18.11%
• YTD: 110.66%
• 6M: 131.16%
• 1Y: 230.99%
• 3Y*: 50.14%
• 5Y*: 19.36%
• 10Y*: —

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

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CEMA.L iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc	32.32%	33.97%	12.43%	6.65%	-21.47%	-5.32%	28.23%	13.89%
FLRK.L Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF	110.66%	95.84%	-21.88%	20.19%	-27.99%	-6.76%	46.97%	-10.36%

Correlation

The correlation between CEMA.L and FLRK.L is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2019	0.77

The correlation between CEMA.L and FLRK.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CEMA.L	FLRK.L
Technology	49.6%	57.4%
Financial Services	13.7%	8.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	5.5%
Industrials	7.2%	17.7%
Communication Services	6.5%	2.3%
Basic Materials	3.4%	2.4%
Healthcare	3.0%	3.0%
Energy	2.5%	0.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	1.7%
Utilities	1.4%	0.4%
Real Estate	0.7%	-

Return for Risk

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEMA.L

CEMA.L Risk / Return Rank: 86
CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
CEMA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
CEMA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 87
CEMA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
CEMA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 84

FLRK.L

FLRK.L Risk / Return Rank: 97
FLRK.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
FLRK.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
FLRK.L Omega Ratio Rank: 97
FLRK.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FLRK.L Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) and Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF (FLRK.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.

	CEMA.L	FLRK.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.00	5.88	-2.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.93	5.49	-1.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.79	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.58	10.10	-5.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.97	37.96	-20.99
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEMA.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.00, which is lower than the FLRK.L Sharpe Ratio of 5.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEMA.L and FLRK.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CEMA.L	FLRK.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.00	5.88	-2.88
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	0.70	-0.29
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.58	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	0.66	-0.25

Drawdowns

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEMA.L drawdown since its inception was -45.51%, smaller than the maximum FLRK.L drawdown of -49.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEMA.L and FLRK.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEMA.L	FLRK.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.51%	-49.35%	+3.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.77%	-22.72%	+8.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.95%	-28.34%	+8.39%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.15%	-48.15%	+7.00%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.51%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.33%	-5.92%	+4.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.08%	-22.11%	+7.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.72%	6.06%	-2.34%

Volatility

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD Acc (CEMA.L) is 9.45%, while Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF (FLRK.L) has a volatility of 18.80%. This indicates that CEMA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLRK.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CEMA.L	FLRK.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.45%	18.80%	-9.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.12%	34.42%	-16.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.02%	39.09%	-18.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.23%	27.59%	-7.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.95%	29.25%	-9.30%

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEMA.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than FLRK.L's 0.09% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

CEMA.L vs. FLRK.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CEMA.L nor FLRK.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEMA.L and FLRK.L in my portfolio?

CEMA.L and FLRK.L have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CEMA.L or FLRK.L?

On fees, FLRK.L is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEMA.L or FLRK.L?

FLRK.L is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for CEMA.L.

What is the main difference between CEMA.L and FLRK.L?

CEMA.L tracks MSCI EM Asia Index Net, while FLRK.L tracks MSCI Korea NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CEMA.L and 0.09% for FLRK.L.