CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CM5S.L (Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc) and FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - CM5S.L tracks the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY while FLQA.L tracks the Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CM5S.L returned 21.95%/yr vs 24.46%/yr for FLQA.L. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CM5S.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLQA.L.

Performance

CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CM5S.L is traded in GBp, while FLQA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the FLQA.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CM5S.L achieves a 18.08% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 34.31% return.

CM5S.L

• 1D: 1.99%
• 1M: -2.89%
• 6M: 8.23%
• YTD: 18.08%
• 1Y: 15,589.27%
• 3Y*: 21.95%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLQA.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -8.33%
• 6M: 28.04%
• YTD: 34.31%
• 1Y: 53.31%
• 3Y*: 24.46%
• 5Y*: 13.42%
• 10Y*: —

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

CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CM5S.L Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc	18.08%	42.07%	14.29%	-14.04%	-12.20%
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF	34.31%	20.59%	9.64%	6.42%	-3.62%

Correlation

The correlation between CM5S.L and FLQA.L is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2022	0.31

Return for Risk

CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CM5S.L

CM5S.L Risk / Return Rank: 84
CM5S.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
CM5S.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CM5S.L Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CM5S.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CM5S.L Martin Ratio Rank: 100

FLQA.L

FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 79
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.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.

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.

	CM5S.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.65	2.22	-1.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	266.22	2.82	+263.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	94.93	1.40	+93.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	156.91	4.12	+152.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	503.13	12.65	+490.48

CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CM5S.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.65, which is lower than the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CM5S.L and FLQA.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.

Drawdowns

CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CM5S.L drawdown since its inception was -99.27%, which is greater than FLQA.L's maximum drawdown of -20.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CM5S.L and FLQA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CM5S.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-99.27%	-20.97%	-78.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-99.27%	-12.89%	-86.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-99.27%	-19.58%	-79.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.64%	-12.89%	+3.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.95%	-4.05%	-13.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.96%	4.20%	+26.76%

Volatility

CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P China A MidCap 500 Swap UCITS ETF Acc (CM5S.L) has a higher volatility of 666.72% compared to Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L) at 11.00%. This indicates that CM5S.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CM5S.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	666.72%	11.00%	+655.72%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	925.26%	21.81%	+903.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24,147.38%	23.95%	+24,123.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11,902.58%	16.59%	+11,885.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11,902.58%	17.86%	+11,884.72%

CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CM5S.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

CM5S.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CM5S.L nor FLQA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CM5S.L and FLQA.L in my portfolio?

CM5S.L and FLQA.L have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CM5S.L or FLQA.L?

On fees, FLQA.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CM5S.L or FLQA.L?

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CM5S.L.

What is the main difference between CM5S.L and FLQA.L?

CM5S.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while FLQA.L tracks Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CM5S.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.