PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EEMA vs. FLAU
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EEMA vs. FLAU

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) and FLAU (Franklin FTSE Australia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - EEMA tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index while FLAU tracks the FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EEMA returned 6.86%/yr vs 5.94%/yr for FLAU. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EEMA charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLAU.

Performance

EEMA vs. FLAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMA achieves a 26.70% return, which is significantly higher than FLAU's 10.26% return.

EEMA

1D
-0.85%
1M
6.12%
YTD
26.70%
6M
30.29%
1Y
53.35%
3Y*
23.94%
5Y*
6.86%
10Y*
10.66%

FLAU

1D
-0.20%
1M
-0.14%
YTD
10.26%
6M
11.87%
1Y
15.17%
3Y*
13.13%
5Y*
5.94%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMA vs. FLAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF		26.70%33.27%10.23%6.57%-21.49%-4.22%25.17%18.60%-15.76%1.27%
FLAU
Franklin FTSE Australia ETF		10.26%15.95%1.81%12.58%-5.58%9.90%11.00%23.38%-10.17%1.89%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and FLAU 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

0.66

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

0.67

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

0.62

The correlation between EEMA and FLAU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMA vs. FLAU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EEMA
FLAU

Technology

41.2%
1.2%

Financial Services

15.9%
36.0%

Consumer Cyclical

11.3%
6.6%

Industrials

8.8%
6.4%

Communication Services

6.0%
1.7%

Basic Materials

4.5%
26.2%

Healthcare

3.7%
4.9%

Energy

3.2%
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

2.8%
3.7%

Utilities

1.8%
0.8%

Real Estate

0.8%
6.4%

Technology

EEMA
41.2%
FLAU
1.2%

Financial Services

EEMA
15.9%
FLAU
36.0%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMA
11.3%
FLAU
6.6%

Industrials

EEMA
8.8%
FLAU
6.4%

Communication Services

EEMA
6.0%
FLAU
1.7%

Basic Materials

EEMA
4.5%
FLAU
26.2%

Healthcare

EEMA
3.7%
FLAU
4.9%

Energy

EEMA
3.2%
FLAU
5.7%

Consumer Defensive

EEMA
2.8%
FLAU
3.7%

Utilities

EEMA
1.8%
FLAU
0.8%

Real Estate

EEMA
0.8%
FLAU
6.4%

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 Emerging Markets Asia ETF

Franklin FTSE Australia ETF

Often compared with EEMA:
EEMA vs. AIAEEMA vs. GMFEEMA vs. VFEM.LEEMA vs. VAPX.ASEEMA vs. GXCEEMA vs. MATFXEEMA vs. MCHI
Often compared with FLAU:
FLAU vs. EWAFLAU vs. FLBRFLAU vs. FLGBFLAU vs. EPIFLAU vs. PEYFLAU vs. BCDFLAU vs. QQQ

Return for Risk

EEMA vs. FLAU — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EEMA
EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
FLAU
FLAU Risk / Return Rank: 2828
Overall Rank
FLAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 2626
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLAU Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
FLAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLAU Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
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.

EEMA vs. FLAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) and Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU). 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.

EEMAFLAUDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.63
0.92

+1.71

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.46
1.36

+2.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.48

1.17

+0.31

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.75

1.52

+2.23

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.12

4.69

+9.42

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

EEMA vs. FLAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.63, which is higher than the FLAU Sharpe Ratio of 0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and FLAU, 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

EEMAFLAUDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.63

0.92

+1.71

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.34

0.30

+0.03

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.37

0.33

+0.04

Drawdowns

EEMA vs. FLAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, roughly equal to the maximum FLAU drawdown of -45.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and FLAU.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EEMAFLAUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-44.18%

-45.73%

+1.55%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.30%

-10.01%

-4.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.23%

-22.03%

+1.80%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-40.67%

-24.68%

-15.99%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.18%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.01%

-3.30%

+1.29%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.97%

-6.79%

-7.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.79%

3.24%

+0.55%

Volatility

EEMA vs. FLAU - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a higher volatility of 8.48% compared to Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) at 5.35%. This indicates that EEMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EEMAFLAUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.48%

5.35%

+3.13%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.43%

13.65%

+3.78%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.42%

16.63%

+3.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.41%

19.60%

+0.81%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.87%

23.58%

-2.71%

EEMA vs. FLAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FLAU's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

EEMA vs. FLAU - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, less than FLAU's 2.95% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF		1.17%1.48%1.74%2.02%1.78%2.19%1.15%1.86%2.17%1.74%1.74%2.44%
FLAU
Franklin FTSE Australia ETF		2.95%3.25%3.37%3.62%5.91%5.14%2.18%4.37%4.34%0.18%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

EEMA and FLAU 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.

EEMA has higher volatility (8.48%) compared to FLAU (5.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs FLAU's -45.73%.

On 5-year performance, EEMA leads with 6.86% vs 5.94% for FLAU. On fees, FLAU is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLAU has been the lower-risk option at 5.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, EEMA has performed better with a 6.86% return vs 5.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLAU is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EEMA.

FLAU has the higher dividend yield at 2.95%, compared with 1.17% for EEMA.

EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while FLAU tracks FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EEMA and 0.09% for FLAU.

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.63 vs 0.92), 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 EEMA and FLAU

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