PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

EEMA vs. FLJH

Last updated Aug 5, 2026
Documentation

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 7.47%/yr vs 21.12%/yr for FLJH. Their 0.49 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. 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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMA achieves a 22.06% return, which is significantly higher than FLJH's 20.00% return.

EEMA

1D
2.15%
1M
0.93%
6M
13.61%
YTD
22.06%
1Y
38.70%
3Y*
21.29%
5Y*
7.47%
10Y*
9.46%
ALL TIME*
7.10%

FLJH

1D
2.05%
1M
-0.86%
6M
12.42%
YTD
20.00%
1Y
38.42%
3Y*
26.81%
5Y*
21.12%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
14.42%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

EEMA

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF
$19.43M$13.06M$19.95M

FLJH

Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF
$3.04M$2.02M$1.55M

EEMA vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF		22.06%33.27%10.23%6.57%-21.49%-4.22%25.17%18.60%-15.76%1.61%
FLJH
Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF		20.00%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 0.58, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.58

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.47

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer 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 0.47 (3 years) to 0.58 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EEMA vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EEMA
FLJH

Technology

40.7%
23.1%

Financial Services

17.0%
16.2%

Consumer Cyclical

9.9%
12.1%

Industrials

8.4%
23.5%

Communication Services

6.6%
7.1%

Basic Materials

4.8%
4.0%

Healthcare

3.9%
5.2%

Consumer Defensive

2.8%
4.0%

Energy

2.7%
0.8%

Utilities

1.7%
1.2%

Real Estate

1.0%
2.9%

Technology

EEMA
40.7%
FLJH
23.1%

Financial Services

EEMA
17.0%
FLJH
16.2%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMA
9.9%
FLJH
12.1%

Industrials

EEMA
8.4%
FLJH
23.5%

Communication Services

EEMA
6.6%
FLJH
7.1%

Basic Materials

EEMA
4.8%
FLJH
4.0%

Healthcare

EEMA
3.9%
FLJH
5.2%

Consumer Defensive

EEMA
2.8%
FLJH
4.0%

Energy

EEMA
2.7%
FLJH
0.8%

Utilities

EEMA
1.7%
FLJH
1.2%

Real Estate

EEMA
1.0%
FLJH
2.9%

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 Japan Hedged ETF

Often compared with EEMA:
EEMA vs. AIAEEMA vs. GMFEEMA vs. VFEM.LEEMA vs. MATFXEEMA vs. VAPX.ASEEMA vs. GXCEEMA vs. MCHI
Often compared with FLJH:
FLJH vs. FLJPFLJH vs. EWJVFLJH vs. HEWJFLJH vs. EWJFLJH vs. DBJPFLJH vs. OARKFLJH vs. SCHD

Return for Risk

EEMA vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
EEMA
EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 7070
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank
FLJH
FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 7575
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 8383
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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.

EEMAFLJHDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.63
2.02

-0.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.19
2.71

-0.52

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.36

-0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.72

3.58

-0.86

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.33

12.57

-4.24

EEMA vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is comparable to the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.02. 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.

Loading charts...

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.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EEMAFLJHDifference

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

-38.31%

-20.39%

-17.92%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-44.18%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.83%

-4.23%

-1.60%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.88%

-5.27%

-8.61%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.66%

3.06%

+1.60%

Volatility

EEMA vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a higher volatility of 7.78% compared to Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) at 6.04%. 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.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EEMAFLJHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.78%

6.04%

+1.74%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.29%

15.34%

+5.95%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.86%

19.20%

+4.66%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.05%

18.77%

+2.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.13%

19.88%

+1.25%

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 1.35%, less than FLJH's 2.51% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMA
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF		1.35%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		2.51%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

EEMA and FLJH have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EEMA has higher volatility (7.78%) compared to FLJH (6.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMA dropped -44.18% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

On 5-year performance, FLJH leads with 21.12% vs 7.47% for EEMA. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 6.04%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 21.12% return vs 7.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 2.51%, compared with 1.35% for EEMA.

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.

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 vs 1.63), 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 FLJH

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