PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD(Acc) (EMVL.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMVL.L achieves a 27.71% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 30.17% return.


EMVL.L

1D
-1.78%
1M
-12.08%
6M
19.62%
YTD
27.71%
1Y
52.30%
3Y*
30.85%
5Y*
14.50%
10Y*

FLQA.L

1D
-1.86%
1M
-11.56%
6M
22.63%
YTD
30.17%
1Y
48.05%
3Y*
24.43%
5Y*
12.23%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
EMVL.L
iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD(Acc)
27.71%43.13%14.49%18.37%-16.29%5.29%7.72%17.64%-2.10%
FLQA.L
Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
30.17%29.84%7.76%12.02%-12.93%4.57%6.71%9.75%-2.53%

Correlation

The correlation between EMVL.L and FLQA.L is 0.91, 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

0.91

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

0.87

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

0.88

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 6, 2018

0.89

The correlation between EMVL.L and FLQA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - 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

EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMVL.L
EMVL.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
EMVL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EMVL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
EMVL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
EMVL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8383
Calmar Ratio Rank
EMVL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank

FLQA.L
FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD(Acc) (EMVL.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.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.


EMVL.LFLQA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.28

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.22

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.34

+0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.48

3.37

+0.11

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.16

10.76

+0.40

EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMVL.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is comparable to the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMVL.L and FLQA.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

EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMVL.L drawdown since its inception was -34.95%, which is greater than FLQA.L's maximum drawdown of -29.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMVL.L and FLQA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EMVL.LFLQA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.95%

-29.21%

-5.74%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.94%

-14.19%

-0.75%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.42%

-22.19%

+5.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-31.61%

-25.38%

-6.23%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-14.94%

-14.19%

-0.75%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.52%

-7.22%

-2.30%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.67%

4.45%

+0.22%

Volatility

EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Edge MSCI EM Value Factor UCITS ETF USD(Acc) (EMVL.L) is 10.20%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 10.89%. This indicates that EMVL.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EMVL.LFLQA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.20%

10.89%

-0.69%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.35%

23.07%

-1.72%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

23.92%

25.18%

-1.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.72%

17.75%

+2.97%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.39%

18.53%

+2.86%

EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMVL.L has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% expense ratio.


Dividends

EMVL.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither EMVL.L nor FLQA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.91, EMVL.L and FLQA.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

On fees, FLQA.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for EMVL.L.

EMVL.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while FLQA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. EMVL.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while FLQA.L tracks Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for EMVL.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EMVL.L and FLQA.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