PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ECNS vs. FLTW
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ECNS vs. FLTW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ECNS (iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF) and FLTW (Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - ECNS tracks the MSCI China Small Cap Index while FLTW tracks the FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ECNS returned -6.97%/yr vs 21.84%/yr for FLTW. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ECNS charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLTW.

Performance

ECNS vs. FLTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECNS achieves a -4.50% return, which is significantly lower than FLTW's 73.16% return.

ECNS

1D
-2.25%
1M
-6.37%
YTD
-4.50%
6M
-7.48%
1Y
13.77%
3Y*
7.43%
5Y*
-6.97%
10Y*
1.88%

FLTW

1D
-0.16%
1M
20.90%
YTD
73.16%
6M
78.07%
1Y
122.77%
3Y*
43.09%
5Y*
21.84%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ECNS vs. FLTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF		-4.50%36.49%5.64%-23.05%-24.58%2.11%25.42%7.84%-18.27%-0.61%
FLTW
Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF		73.16%32.00%16.68%30.05%-27.51%29.46%29.77%31.23%-9.32%-1.25%

Correlation

The correlation between ECNS and FLTW is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.50

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

0.42

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

0.46

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2017

0.49

ECNS vs. FLTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ECNS
FLTW

Healthcare

19.8%
0.6%

Technology

16.9%
75.6%

Industrials

16.2%
4.0%

Real Estate

8.8%

-

Consumer Cyclical

8.8%
1.7%

Basic Materials

7.8%
2.9%

Communication Services

4.5%
1.6%

Financial Services

4.4%
12.6%

Consumer Defensive

4.0%
0.9%

Energy

3.4%
0.1%

Utilities

2.6%

-

Healthcare

ECNS
19.8%
FLTW
0.6%

Technology

ECNS
16.9%
FLTW
75.6%

Industrials

ECNS
16.2%
FLTW
4.0%

Real Estate

ECNS
8.8%
FLTW

-

Consumer Cyclical

ECNS
8.8%
FLTW
1.7%

Basic Materials

ECNS
7.8%
FLTW
2.9%

Communication Services

ECNS
4.5%
FLTW
1.6%

Financial Services

ECNS
4.4%
FLTW
12.6%

Consumer Defensive

ECNS
4.0%
FLTW
0.9%

Energy

ECNS
3.4%
FLTW
0.1%

Utilities

ECNS
2.6%
FLTW

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF

Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF

Often compared with ECNS:
ECNS vs. ASHSECNS vs. MCHIECNS vs. CNXTECNS vs. DFAEECNS vs. CQQQECNS vs. FLCHECNS vs. EWT
Often compared with FLTW:
FLTW vs. EWTFLTW vs. VOOFLTW vs. FLGRFLTW vs. EMMFFLTW vs. SCHDFLTW vs. VXUSFLTW vs. FOXA

Return for Risk

ECNS vs. FLTW — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
ECNS
ECNS Risk / Return Rank: 1919
Overall Rank
ECNS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2020
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ECNS Sortino Ratio Rank: 1919
Sortino Ratio Rank
ECNS Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
ECNS Calmar Ratio Rank: 1919
Calmar Ratio Rank
ECNS Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank
FLTW
FLTW Risk / Return Rank: 9696
Overall Rank
FLTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLTW Omega Ratio Rank: 9595
Omega Ratio Rank
FLTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLTW Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
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.

ECNS vs. FLTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW). 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.

ECNSFLTWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.66
4.75

-4.09

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.00
5.21

-4.21

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.13

1.73

-0.60

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.76

11.36

-10.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.51

35.77

-34.26

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ECNS vs. FLTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECNS Sharpe Ratio is 0.66, which is lower than the FLTW Sharpe Ratio of 4.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECNS and FLTW, 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

ECNSFLTWDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.66

4.75

-4.09

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.24

0.98

-1.22

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.07

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.02

0.95

-0.93

Drawdowns

ECNS vs. FLTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECNS drawdown since its inception was -63.43%, which is greater than FLTW's maximum drawdown of -38.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECNS and FLTW.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ECNSFLTWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-63.43%

-38.00%

-25.43%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-18.08%

-10.87%

-7.21%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-31.72%

-26.45%

-5.27%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-59.61%

-38.00%

-21.61%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-63.43%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-38.52%

-0.16%

-38.36%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-29.39%

-8.43%

-20.96%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

9.14%

3.45%

+5.69%

Volatility

ECNS vs. FLTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF (ECNS) is 5.64%, while Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) has a volatility of 11.77%. This indicates that ECNS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ECNSFLTWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.64%

11.77%

-6.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.87%

21.29%

-8.42%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.92%

26.00%

-5.08%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.44%

22.44%

+7.00%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.90%

21.77%

+4.13%

ECNS vs. FLTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECNS has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTW's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECNS vs. FLTW - Dividend Comparison

ECNS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.49%, more than FLTW's 1.45% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ECNS
iShares MSCI China Small-Cap ETF		6.49%6.20%5.98%4.89%3.54%4.87%3.59%3.23%6.16%3.18%4.29%3.58%
FLTW
Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF		1.45%2.51%1.89%2.85%3.16%2.31%2.14%3.00%1.06%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

ECNS and FLTW have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FLTW has higher volatility (11.77%) compared to ECNS (5.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECNS dropped -63.43% vs FLTW's -38.00%.

On 5-year performance, FLTW leads with 21.84% vs -6.97% for ECNS. On fees, FLTW is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ECNS has been the lower-risk option at 5.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FLTW has performed better with a 21.84% return vs -6.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLTW is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for ECNS.

ECNS has the higher dividend yield at 6.49%, compared with 1.45% for FLTW.

ECNS tracks MSCI China Small Cap Index, while FLTW tracks FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ECNS and 0.19% for FLTW.

FLTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 0.66), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ECNS and FLTW

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