EDEN vs. FLGR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EDEN (iShares MSCI Denmark ETF) and FLGR (Franklin FTSE Germany ETF) are both Europe Equities funds - EDEN tracks the MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index while FLGR tracks the FTSE Germany RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EDEN returned 2.15%/yr vs 6.42%/yr for FLGR. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EDEN charges 0.53%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLGR.

Performance

EDEN vs. FLGR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EDEN achieves a -3.46% return, which is significantly lower than FLGR's -1.59% return.

EDEN

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: -1.76%
• YTD: -3.46%
• 6M: -3.93%
• 1Y: -0.63%
• 3Y*: 3.19%
• 5Y*: 2.15%
• 10Y*: 9.32%

FLGR

• 1D: -1.35%
• 1M: -2.30%
• YTD: -1.59%
• 6M: -1.54%
• 1Y: 2.77%
• 3Y*: 16.65%
• 5Y*: 6.42%
• 10Y*: —

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

EDEN vs. FLGR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EDEN iShares MSCI Denmark ETF	-3.46%	10.58%	-3.94%	17.99%	-11.47%	14.81%	42.56%	24.37%	-14.43%	1.93%
FLGR Franklin FTSE Germany ETF	-1.59%	36.67%	10.63%	24.22%	-21.96%	5.40%	12.11%	19.99%	-21.50%	-0.16%

Correlation

The correlation between EDEN and FLGR is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.64
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.66

The correlation between EDEN and FLGR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

EDEN vs. FLGR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EDEN	FLGR
Healthcare	36.0%	5.6%
Industrials	29.4%	29.9%
Financial Services	15.8%	20.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	1.4%
Basic Materials	4.7%	5.6%
Utilities	3.2%	4.5%
Consumer Cyclical	2.5%	8.7%
Energy	1.0%	-
Technology	0.9%	16.1%
Communication Services	-	6.4%
Real Estate	-	1.2%

Return for Risk

EDEN vs. FLGR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EDEN

EDEN Risk / Return Rank: 8
EDEN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
EDEN Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
EDEN Omega Ratio Rank: 8
EDEN Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
EDEN Martin Ratio Rank: 8

FLGR

FLGR Risk / Return Rank: 11
FLGR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
FLGR Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
FLGR Omega Ratio Rank: 10
FLGR Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
FLGR Martin Ratio Rank: 11

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. FLGR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) and Franklin FTSE Germany ETF (FLGR). 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	FLGR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.03	0.16	-0.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.10	0.34	-0.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.04	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.03	0.19	-0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.06	0.54	-0.60

EDEN vs. FLGR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EDEN Sharpe Ratio is -0.03, which is lower than the FLGR Sharpe Ratio of 0.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EDEN and FLGR, 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. FLGR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EDEN drawdown since its inception was -36.61%, smaller than the maximum FLGR drawdown of -46.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EDEN and FLGR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EDEN	FLGR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.61%	-46.21%	+9.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.17%	-14.44%	-6.73%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.31%	-15.53%	-13.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.61%	-42.69%	+6.08%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.61%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.92%	-6.20%	-7.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.38%	-12.32%	+4.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.81%	5.15%	+4.66%

Volatility

EDEN vs. FLGR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Denmark ETF (EDEN) is 4.76%, while Franklin FTSE Germany ETF (FLGR) has a volatility of 5.27%. This indicates that EDEN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLGR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EDEN	FLGR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.76%	5.27%	-0.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.73%	14.55%	+1.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.72%	17.49%	+3.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.27%	20.32%	-0.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.23%	21.41%	-2.18%

EDEN vs. FLGR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EDEN vs. FLGR - Dividend Comparison

EDEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.17%, more than FLGR's 0.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EDEN iShares MSCI Denmark ETF	3.17%	2.79%	1.50%	1.92%	1.47%	0.74%	0.42%	2.36%	2.01%	2.03%	1.28%	1.46%
FLGR Franklin FTSE Germany ETF	0.33%	1.72%	2.40%	2.99%	3.50%	2.67%	2.61%	2.52%	3.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EDEN and FLGR in my portfolio?

EDEN and FLGR have a correlation of 0.66, 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 FLGR?

FLGR has higher volatility (5.27%) compared to EDEN (4.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EDEN dropped -36.61% vs FLGR's -46.21%.

Which ETF is better, EDEN or FLGR?

On 5-year performance, FLGR leads with 6.42% vs 2.15% for EDEN. On fees, FLGR is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, EDEN has been the lower-risk option at 4.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EDEN or FLGR?

Over the 5-year period, FLGR has performed better with a 6.42% return vs 2.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EDEN or FLGR?

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

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

EDEN has the higher dividend yield at 3.17%, compared with 0.33% for FLGR.

What is the main difference between EDEN and FLGR?

EDEN tracks MSCI Denmark IMI 25/50 Index, while FLGR tracks FTSE Germany 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 FLGR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLGR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.16 vs -0.03), 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.