PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan UCITS ETF (FRXT.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EMAD.L is traded in USD, while FRXT.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the FRXT.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMAD.L achieves a 21.59% return, which is significantly lower than FRXT.L's 60.63% return.


EMAD.L

1D
-1.54%
1M
-8.90%
6M
14.74%
YTD
21.59%
1Y
36.41%
3Y*
20.83%
5Y*
6.55%
10Y*
9.69%

FRXT.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-4.37%
6M
52.70%
YTD
60.63%
1Y
91.66%
3Y*
41.24%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
EMAD.L
State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
21.59%32.13%11.12%6.54%-14.43%
FRXT.L
Franklin FTSE Taiwan UCITS ETF
60.63%34.80%23.57%29.08%-41.34%

Correlation

The correlation between EMAD.L and FRXT.L is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.84

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

0.75

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 21, 2022

0.75

The correlation between EMAD.L and FRXT.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMAD.L
EMAD.L Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
EMAD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMAD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMAD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
EMAD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMAD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank

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

EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan UCITS ETF (FRXT.L). 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.


EMAD.LFRXT.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.89

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.88

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.55

-0.27

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.69

8.21

-5.52

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.03

22.55

-14.52

EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMAD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is lower than the FRXT.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMAD.L and FRXT.L, 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

EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMAD.L drawdown since its inception was -46.17%, smaller than the maximum FRXT.L drawdown of -50.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMAD.L and FRXT.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMAD.LFRXT.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-46.17%

-50.13%

+3.96%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.38%

-11.22%

-2.16%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.03%

-27.95%

+7.92%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.17%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-11.48%

-9.57%

-1.91%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-14.72%

-19.07%

+4.35%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.50%

4.08%

+0.42%

Volatility

EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for State Street SPDR MSCI EM Asia UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (EMAD.L) is 9.84%, while Franklin FTSE Taiwan UCITS ETF (FRXT.L) has a volatility of 11.95%. This indicates that EMAD.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FRXT.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMAD.LFRXT.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.84%

11.95%

-2.11%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.14%

23.40%

-2.26%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.53%

26.94%

-3.41%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.80%

25.75%

-4.95%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.15%

25.75%

-5.60%

EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMAD.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than FRXT.L's 0.19% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMAD.L vs. FRXT.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMAD.L nor FRXT.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


EMAD.L and FRXT.L have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FRXT.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FRXT.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EMAD.L.

EMAD.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FRXT.L is Taiwan Equities. EMAD.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Asia Index, while FRXT.L tracks MSCI Taiwan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for EMAD.L and 0.19% for FRXT.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMAD.L and FRXT.L

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