EEMA vs. FLJH

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EEMA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EEMA returned 6.29%/yr vs 21.04%/yr for FLJH. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EEMA charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

EEMA vs. FLJH - 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 Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMA achieves a 18.98% return, which is significantly lower than FLJH's 21.27% return.

EEMA

• 1D: -3.06%
• 1M: -3.81%
• 6M: 12.59%
• YTD: 18.98%
• 1Y: 36.78%
• 3Y*: 19.74%
• 5Y*: 6.29%
• 10Y*: 9.49%

FLJH

• 1D: -1.74%
• 1M: 2.04%
• 6M: 14.20%
• YTD: 21.27%
• 1Y: 45.96%
• 3Y*: 27.94%
• 5Y*: 21.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

EEMA vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	18.98%	33.27%	10.23%	6.57%	-21.49%	-4.22%	25.17%	18.60%	-15.76%	1.61%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	21.27%	25.26%	25.89%	36.02%	-2.75%	12.68%	10.65%	20.34%	-14.66%	1.26%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMA and FLJH is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.49

The correlation between EEMA and FLJH shifts across timeframes, from 0.45 (3 years) to 0.57 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EEMA vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EEMA	FLJH
Technology	43.4%	19.4%
Financial Services	15.3%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	12.7%
Industrials	8.4%	25.2%
Communication Services	6.6%	8.0%
Basic Materials	4.4%	4.4%
Healthcare	3.5%	5.5%
Energy	2.8%	0.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	4.0%
Utilities	1.7%	1.2%
Real Estate	0.9%	3.0%

Return for Risk

EEMA vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 61
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 63
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 63

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 89
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. FLJH - 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 Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). 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.

	EEMA	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.60	2.41	-0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	3.20	-1.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.44	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.58	4.28	-1.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.89	16.18	-7.29

EEMA vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.60, which is lower than the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMA and FLJH, 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

EEMA vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMA drawdown since its inception was -44.18%, which is greater than FLJH's maximum drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMA and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	EEMA	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.18%	-31.51%	-12.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.30%	-10.80%	-3.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.23%	-20.39%	+0.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.81%	-20.39%	-18.42%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.21%	-3.22%	-4.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.90%	-5.28%	-8.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.15%	2.85%	+1.30%

Volatility

EEMA vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a higher volatility of 10.02% compared to Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) at 7.11%. This indicates that EEMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EEMA	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.02%	7.11%	+2.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.70%	15.13%	+5.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.20%	19.20%	+4.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.98%	18.72%	+2.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.05%	19.88%	+1.17%

EEMA vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EEMA vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

EEMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%, less than FLJH's 2.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.38%	1.48%	1.74%	2.02%	1.78%	2.19%	1.15%	1.86%	2.17%	1.74%	1.74%	2.44%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	2.48%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EEMA and FLJH in my portfolio?

EEMA and FLJH have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EEMA or FLJH?

EEMA has higher volatility (10.02%) compared to FLJH (7.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, EEMA or FLJH?

On 5-year performance, FLJH leads with 21.04% vs 6.29% for EEMA. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 7.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EEMA or FLJH?

Over the 5-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 21.04% return vs 6.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EEMA or FLJH?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EEMA or FLJH?

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 2.48%, compared with 1.38% for EEMA.

What is the main difference between EEMA and FLJH?

EEMA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FLJH is Japan Equities. EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index, while FLJH tracks FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EEMA and 0.09% for FLJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 1.60), 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.