EDEN vs. FLGB

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

EDEN (iShares MSCI Denmark ETF) and FLGB (Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF) are both Europe Equities funds - EDEN tracks the MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index while FLGB tracks the FTSE UK RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EDEN returned 2.76%/yr vs 11.70%/yr for FLGB. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EDEN charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLGB.

Performance

EDEN vs. FLGB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) and Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EDEN achieves a 2.00% return, which is significantly lower than FLGB's 6.91% return.

EDEN

• 1D: 0.93%
• 1M: 5.21%
• 6M: -3.43%
• YTD: 2.00%
• 1Y: 3.98%
• 3Y*: 3.93%
• 5Y*: 2.76%
• 10Y*: 9.44%

FLGB

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.00%
• 6M: 4.68%
• YTD: 6.91%
• 1Y: 19.32%
• 3Y*: 17.23%
• 5Y*: 11.70%
• 10Y*: —

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

EDEN vs. FLGB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EDEN iShares MSCI Denmark ETF	2.00%	10.58%	-3.94%	17.99%	-11.47%	14.81%	42.56%	24.37%	-14.43%	1.93%
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	6.91%	33.73%	8.77%	14.33%	-6.00%	17.14%	-9.47%	23.23%	-11.60%	1.12%

Correlation

The correlation between EDEN and FLGB is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.61

The correlation between EDEN and FLGB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.61 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

EDEN vs. FLGB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EDEN	FLGB
Healthcare	37.9%	13.4%
Industrials	28.5%	13.4%
Financial Services	15.0%	27.5%
Basic Materials	4.7%	8.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	14.2%
Utilities	3.1%	4.7%
Consumer Cyclical	2.7%	5.1%
Technology	0.9%	0.6%
Energy	0.8%	9.5%
Communication Services	-	2.4%
Real Estate	-	0.9%

Return for Risk

EDEN vs. FLGB — Risk / Return Rank

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

EDEN

EDEN Risk / Return Rank: 12
EDEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
EDEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
EDEN Omega Ratio Rank: 12
EDEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
EDEN Martin Ratio Rank: 12

FLGB

FLGB Risk / Return Rank: 47
FLGB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
FLGB Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
FLGB Omega Ratio Rank: 45
FLGB Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
FLGB Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

EDEN vs. FLGB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) and Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB). 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.

	EDEN	FLGB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.19	1.33	-1.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.41	1.95	-1.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.24	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.19	1.89	-1.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.40	6.34	-5.94

EDEN vs. FLGB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EDEN Sharpe Ratio is 0.19, which is lower than the FLGB Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EDEN and FLGB, 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

EDEN vs. FLGB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EDEN drawdown since its inception was -36.61%, smaller than the maximum FLGB drawdown of -42.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EDEN and FLGB.

Drawdown Indicators

	EDEN	FLGB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.61%	-42.61%	+6.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.17%	-10.26%	-10.91%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.31%	-13.13%	-16.18%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.61%	-25.90%	-10.71%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.61%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.05%	-3.09%	-5.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.40%	-6.65%	-0.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.03%	3.06%	+6.97%

Volatility

EDEN vs. FLGB - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) has a higher volatility of 4.34% compared to Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB) at 3.85%. This indicates that EDEN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLGB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EDEN	FLGB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.34%	3.85%	+0.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.72%	12.60%	+3.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.71%	14.58%	+6.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.31%	16.62%	+3.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.16%	18.92%	+0.24%

EDEN vs. FLGB - Expense Ratio Comparison

EDEN has a 0.53% expense ratio, which is higher than FLGB's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

EDEN vs. FLGB - Dividend Comparison

EDEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.00%, more than FLGB's 2.97% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EDEN iShares MSCI Denmark ETF	3.00%	2.79%	1.50%	1.92%	1.47%	0.74%	0.42%	2.36%	2.01%	2.03%	1.28%	1.46%
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	2.97%	3.50%	4.42%	3.95%	4.23%	2.93%	2.67%	4.30%	3.92%	0.43%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EDEN and FLGB in my portfolio?

EDEN and FLGB have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EDEN or FLGB?

EDEN has higher volatility (4.34%) compared to FLGB (3.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EDEN dropped -36.61% vs FLGB's -42.61%.

Which ETF is better, EDEN or FLGB?

On 5-year performance, FLGB leads with 11.70% vs 2.76% for EDEN. On fees, FLGB is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLGB has been the lower-risk option at 3.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EDEN or FLGB?

Over the 5-year period, FLGB has performed better with a 11.70% return vs 2.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EDEN or FLGB?

FLGB is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.53% for EDEN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EDEN or FLGB?

EDEN has the higher dividend yield at 3.00%, compared with 2.97% for FLGB.

What is the main difference between EDEN and FLGB?

EDEN tracks MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index, while FLGB tracks FTSE UK RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.53% for EDEN and 0.09% for FLGB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLGB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.33 vs 0.19), 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.