EMMF vs. FLAU

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

EMMF (WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund) and FLAU (Franklin FTSE Australia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. EMMF is actively managed, while FLAU is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMMF returned 11.18%/yr vs 6.57%/yr for FLAU. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EMMF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLAU.

Performance

EMMF vs. FLAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) and Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMMF achieves a 29.25% return, which is significantly higher than FLAU's 11.78% return.

EMMF

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 12.42%
• YTD: 29.25%
• 6M: 30.61%
• 1Y: 50.65%
• 3Y*: 24.40%
• 5Y*: 11.18%
• 10Y*: —

FLAU

• 1D: 0.97%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 11.78%
• 6M: 14.79%
• 1Y: 17.54%
• 3Y*: 13.42%
• 5Y*: 6.57%
• 10Y*: —

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

EMMF vs. FLAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	29.25%	21.22%	9.45%	20.59%	-13.47%	5.97%	9.25%	2.30%	-6.64%
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF	11.78%	15.95%	1.81%	12.58%	-5.58%	9.90%	11.00%	23.38%	-12.36%

Correlation

The correlation between EMMF and FLAU is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.67
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 13, 2018	0.68

The correlation between EMMF and FLAU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

EMMF vs. FLAU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMMF	FLAU
Technology	32.9%	1.2%
Consumer Cyclical	14.0%	6.6%
Financial Services	8.2%	36.0%
Communication Services	6.6%	1.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.4%	3.7%
Industrials	3.8%	6.4%
Energy	2.1%	5.7%
Utilities	2.0%	0.8%
Basic Materials	1.9%	26.2%
Healthcare	0.3%	4.9%
Real Estate	-	6.4%

Return for Risk

EMMF vs. FLAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMMF

EMMF Risk / Return Rank: 88
EMMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
EMMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
EMMF Omega Ratio Rank: 90
EMMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
EMMF Martin Ratio Rank: 88

FLAU

FLAU Risk / Return Rank: 32
FLAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FLAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
FLAU Omega Ratio Rank: 28
FLAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
FLAU Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

EMMF vs. FLAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) and Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU). 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.

	EMMF	FLAU	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.08	1.06	+2.02
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.02	1.54	+2.48
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.19	+0.40
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.79	1.91	+2.88
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.83	5.94	+13.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMMF vs. FLAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMMF Sharpe Ratio is 3.08, which is higher than the FLAU Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMMF and FLAU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMMF	FLAU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.08	1.06	+2.02
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.78	0.34	+0.44
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	0.34	+0.21

Drawdowns

EMMF vs. FLAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMMF drawdown since its inception was -32.57%, smaller than the maximum FLAU drawdown of -45.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMMF and FLAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMMF	FLAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.57%	-45.73%	+13.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.62%	-10.01%	-0.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.02%	-22.03%	+6.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.99%	-24.68%	-0.31%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.25%	-1.97%	+1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.45%	-6.79%	-0.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.57%	3.23%	-0.66%

Volatility

EMMF vs. FLAU - Volatility Comparison

WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund (EMMF) has a higher volatility of 7.08% compared to Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) at 5.55%. This indicates that EMMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMMF	FLAU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.08%	5.55%	+1.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.42%	13.63%	+0.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.53%	16.64%	-0.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.38%	19.60%	-5.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.62%	23.58%	-6.96%

EMMF vs. FLAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMMF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than FLAU's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMMF vs. FLAU - Dividend Comparison

EMMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.83%, less than FLAU's 2.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EMMF WisdomTree Emerging Markets Multifactor Fund	1.83%	2.45%	1.30%	1.62%	3.48%	2.64%	1.93%	2.93%	0.66%	0.00%
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF	2.91%	3.25%	3.37%	3.62%	5.91%	5.14%	2.18%	4.37%	4.34%	0.18%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMMF and FLAU in my portfolio?

EMMF and FLAU have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMMF or FLAU?

EMMF has higher volatility (7.08%) compared to FLAU (5.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMMF dropped -32.57% vs FLAU's -45.73%.

Which ETF is better, EMMF or FLAU?

On 5-year performance, EMMF leads with 11.18% vs 6.57% for FLAU. On fees, FLAU is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLAU has been the lower-risk option at 5.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMMF or FLAU?

Over the 5-year period, EMMF has performed better with a 11.18% return vs 6.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMMF or FLAU?

FLAU is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for EMMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMMF or FLAU?

FLAU has the higher dividend yield at 2.91%, compared with 1.83% for EMMF.

What is the main difference between EMMF and FLAU?

They also come from different issuers: WisdomTree and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for EMMF and 0.09% for FLAU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.08 vs 1.06), 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.