PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EEMV vs. FLTW
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EEMV vs. FLTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EEMV achieves a 17.74% return, which is significantly lower than FLTW's 73.16% return.


EEMV

1D
-1.04%
1M
7.00%
YTD
17.74%
6M
18.90%
1Y
26.57%
3Y*
14.14%
5Y*
5.59%
10Y*
6.68%

FLTW

1D
-0.16%
1M
20.90%
YTD
73.16%
6M
78.07%
1Y
122.77%
3Y*
43.09%
5Y*
21.84%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EEMV vs. FLTW - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
17.74%13.45%7.98%7.75%-13.94%5.05%6.90%7.83%-5.81%3.34%
FLTW
Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF
73.16%32.00%16.68%30.05%-27.51%29.46%29.77%31.23%-9.32%-1.25%

Correlation

The correlation between EEMV and FLTW is 0.77, 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

0.77

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.71

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

0.73

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

0.71

The correlation between EEMV and FLTW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

EEMV vs. FLTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EEMV
FLTW

Technology

28.9%
75.6%

Financial Services

17.7%
12.6%

Communication Services

11.2%
1.6%

Consumer Defensive

6.8%
0.9%

Industrials

6.7%
4.0%

Healthcare

6.2%
0.6%

Consumer Cyclical

5.0%
1.7%

Utilities

4.6%

-

Energy

3.4%
0.1%

Basic Materials

3.1%
2.9%

Real Estate

0.5%

-

Technology

EEMV
28.9%
FLTW
75.6%

Financial Services

EEMV
17.7%
FLTW
12.6%

Communication Services

EEMV
11.2%
FLTW
1.6%

Consumer Defensive

EEMV
6.8%
FLTW
0.9%

Industrials

EEMV
6.7%
FLTW
4.0%

Healthcare

EEMV
6.2%
FLTW
0.6%

Consumer Cyclical

EEMV
5.0%
FLTW
1.7%

Utilities

EEMV
4.6%
FLTW

-

Energy

EEMV
3.4%
FLTW
0.1%

Basic Materials

EEMV
3.1%
FLTW
2.9%

Real Estate

EEMV
0.5%
FLTW

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

EEMV vs. FLTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EEMV
EEMV Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
EEMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMV Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMV Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
Martin Ratio Rank

FLTW
FLTW Risk / Return Rank: 9696
Overall Rank
FLTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 9595
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLTW Omega Ratio Rank: 9595
Omega Ratio Rank
FLTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLTW Martin Ratio Rank: 9696
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.

EEMV vs. FLTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW). 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.


EEMVFLTWDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.71

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.33

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.40

1.73

-0.33

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.89

11.36

-8.46

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.79

35.77

-24.98

EEMV vs. FLTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EEMV Sharpe Ratio is 2.04, which is lower than the FLTW Sharpe Ratio of 4.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EEMV and FLTW, 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


EEMVFLTWDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.04

4.75

-2.71

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.47

0.98

-0.50

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.39

0.95

-0.56

Drawdowns

EEMV vs. FLTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EEMV drawdown since its inception was -31.56%, smaller than the maximum FLTW drawdown of -38.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EEMV and FLTW.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EEMVFLTWDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.56%

-38.00%

+6.44%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.22%

-10.87%

+1.65%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.47%

-26.45%

+13.98%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.90%

-38.00%

+16.10%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.08%

-0.16%

-0.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.97%

-8.43%

+0.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.47%

3.45%

-0.98%

Volatility

EEMV vs. FLTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) is 5.78%, while Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) has a volatility of 11.77%. This indicates that EEMV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EEMVFLTWDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.78%

11.77%

-5.99%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.71%

21.29%

-9.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.06%

26.00%

-12.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.85%

22.44%

-10.59%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.86%

21.77%

-7.91%

EEMV vs. FLTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

EEMV has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTW's 0.19% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

EEMV vs. FLTW - Dividend Comparison

EEMV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.25%, more than FLTW's 1.45% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
2.25%2.65%3.50%2.75%1.93%2.14%2.45%2.63%2.46%2.34%2.79%2.55%
FLTW
Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF
1.45%2.51%1.89%2.85%3.16%2.31%2.14%3.00%1.06%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


EEMV and FLTW have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FLTW has higher volatility (11.77%) compared to EEMV (5.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EEMV dropped -31.56% vs FLTW's -38.00%.

On 5-year performance, FLTW leads with 21.84% vs 5.59% for EEMV. On fees, FLTW is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, EEMV has been the lower-risk option at 5.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FLTW has performed better with a 21.84% return vs 5.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLTW is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for EEMV.

EEMV has the higher dividend yield at 2.25%, compared with 1.45% for FLTW.

EEMV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index, while FLTW tracks FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EEMV and 0.19% for FLTW.

FLTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 2.04), 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 EEMV and FLTW

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