PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMC vs. FLKR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMC vs. FLKR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) and Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMC achieves a 15.64% return, which is significantly lower than FLKR's 61.37% return.


EMC

1D
0.59%
1M
-2.57%
6M
7.83%
YTD
15.64%
1Y
24.09%
3Y*
11.91%
5Y*
10Y*
ALL TIME*
12.26%

FLKR

1D
-2.28%
1M
-12.85%
6M
29.07%
YTD
61.37%
1Y
124.39%
3Y*
35.68%
5Y*
14.07%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
11.21%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$249.07K$184.10K$220.02K
$43.49M$47.84M$51.57M

EMC vs. FLKR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
EMC
Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF
15.64%18.91%3.75%1.62%
FLKR
Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF
61.37%91.91%-18.84%12.98%

Correlation

The correlation between EMC and FLKR is 0.80, 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.

0.80

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

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 15, 2023

0.73

The correlation between EMC and FLKR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMC vs. FLKR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EMC
FLKR

Technology

44.9%
50.8%

Financial Services

21.4%
12.3%

Consumer Cyclical

8.8%
7.1%

Communication Services

7.4%
2.5%

Industrials

6.1%
17.1%

Basic Materials

3.1%
2.9%

Energy

3.0%
0.7%

Consumer Defensive

2.0%
2.2%

Healthcare

2.0%
3.6%

Real Estate

1.4%

-

Utilities

-

0.5%

Technology

EMC
44.9%
FLKR
50.8%

Financial Services

EMC
21.4%
FLKR
12.3%

Consumer Cyclical

EMC
8.8%
FLKR
7.1%

Communication Services

EMC
7.4%
FLKR
2.5%

Industrials

EMC
6.1%
FLKR
17.1%

Basic Materials

EMC
3.1%
FLKR
2.9%

Energy

EMC
3.0%
FLKR
0.7%

Consumer Defensive

EMC
2.0%
FLKR
2.2%

Healthcare

EMC
2.0%
FLKR
3.6%

Real Estate

EMC
1.4%
FLKR

-

Utilities

EMC

-

FLKR
0.5%

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

EMC vs. FLKR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EMC
EMC Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
EMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3737
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 3737
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMC Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
EMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMC Martin Ratio Rank: 4444
Martin Ratio Rank

FLKR
FLKR Risk / Return Rank: 8585
Overall Rank
FLKR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLKR Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLKR Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
FLKR Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLKR Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
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.

EMC vs. FLKR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) and Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR). 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.


EMCFLKRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.27

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.15

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.36

-0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.66

3.46

-1.80

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.90

12.27

-7.37

EMC vs. FLKR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMC Sharpe Ratio is 0.94, which is lower than the FLKR Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMC and FLKR, 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

EMC vs. FLKR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMC drawdown since its inception was -18.38%, smaller than the maximum FLKR drawdown of -50.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMC and FLKR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMCFLKRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-18.38%

-50.06%

+31.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.89%

-34.17%

+20.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.38%

-34.17%

+15.79%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-47.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.27%

-28.42%

+19.15%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.23%

-21.96%

+17.73%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.68%

9.61%

-4.93%

Volatility

EMC vs. FLKR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF (EMC) is 9.23%, while Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR) has a volatility of 21.39%. This indicates that EMC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLKR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMCFLKRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.23%

21.39%

-12.16%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

22.26%

50.33%

-28.07%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.53%

53.42%

-28.89%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.73%

32.16%

-12.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.73%

29.79%

-10.06%

EMC vs. FLKR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than FLKR's 0.09% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMC vs. FLKR - Dividend Comparison

EMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%, less than FLKR's 2.86% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
EMC
Global X Emerging Markets Great Consumer ETF
0.59%0.78%1.13%0.89%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
FLKR
Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF
2.86%3.87%7.08%2.28%3.13%2.12%0.99%2.09%1.86%1.02%

Frequently Asked Questions


EMC and FLKR have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FLKR has higher volatility (21.39%) compared to EMC (9.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMC dropped -18.38% vs FLKR's -50.06%.

On 3-year performance, FLKR leads with 35.68% vs 11.91% for EMC. On fees, FLKR is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, EMC has been the lower-risk option at 9.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, FLKR has performed better with a 35.68% return vs 11.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLKR is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for EMC.

FLKR has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 0.59% for EMC.

EMC is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while FLKR is South Korea Equities. They also come from different issuers: Global X and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for EMC and 0.09% for FLKR.

FLKR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 0.94), 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 EMC and FLKR

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