ESEM.L vs. FLQA.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

ESEM.L (Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc) and FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - ESEM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Universal Select Business Screens Index, while FLQA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ESEM.L returned 6.92%/yr vs 12.23%/yr for FLQA.L. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ESEM.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLQA.L.

Performance

ESEM.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESEM.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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESEM.L achieves a 23.50% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 30.17% return.

ESEM.L

• 1D: 0.56%
• 1M: -5.28%
• 6M: 17.62%
• YTD: 23.50%
• 1Y: 39.40%
• 3Y*: 20.13%
• 5Y*: 6.92%
• 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)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ESEM.L Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc	23.50%	33.09%	5.76%	9.03%	-20.65%	-6.36%
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	30.17%	29.84%	7.76%	12.02%	-12.93%	-0.09%

Correlation

The correlation between ESEM.L and FLQA.L is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 7, 2021	0.87

The correlation between ESEM.L and FLQA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

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

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

ESEM.L

ESEM.L Risk / Return Rank: 79
ESEM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
ESEM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
ESEM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 79
ESEM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ESEM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 78

FLQA.L

FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 77
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESEM.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.

	ESEM.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	1.90	+0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	2.49	+0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.34	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.20	3.37	-0.17
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.96	10.76	+0.20

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

The current ESEM.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESEM.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.

Drawdowns

ESEM.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESEM.L drawdown since its inception was -35.55%, 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 ESEM.L and FLQA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESEM.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.55%	-29.21%	-6.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.95%	-14.19%	+1.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.50%	-22.19%	+5.69%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.82%	-25.38%	-9.44%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.03%	-14.19%	+8.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.97%	-7.22%	-6.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.79%	4.45%	-0.66%

Volatility

ESEM.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco MSCI Emerging Markets Universal Screened UCITS ETF Acc (ESEM.L) is 7.56%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 10.89%. This indicates that ESEM.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.

Volatility by Period

	ESEM.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.56%	10.89%	-3.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.48%	23.07%	-3.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.44%	25.18%	-3.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.65%	17.75%	+1.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.63%	18.53%	+1.10%

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

ESEM.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% 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

ESEM.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ESEM.L and FLQA.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, ESEM.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.

Which ETF is better, ESEM.L or FLQA.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, ESEM.L or FLQA.L?

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for ESEM.L.

What is the main difference between ESEM.L and FLQA.L?

ESEM.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while FLQA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. ESEM.L tracks MSCI EM (Emerging Markets) Universal Select Business Screens Index, while FLQA.L tracks Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for ESEM.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.