EWA vs. FLSW

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

EWA (iShares MSCI-Australia ETF) and FLSW (Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EWA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Australia Index, while FLSW is a Europe Equities fund tracking the FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EWA returned 5.57%/yr vs 6.92%/yr for FLSW. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EWA charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLSW.

Performance

EWA vs. FLSW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI-Australia ETF (EWA) and Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EWA achieves a 11.57% return, which is significantly higher than FLSW's 4.68% return.

EWA

• 1D: 0.90%
• 1M: 1.74%
• YTD: 11.57%
• 6M: 12.06%
• 1Y: 14.64%
• 3Y*: 11.97%
• 5Y*: 5.57%
• 10Y*: 8.75%

FLSW

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 2.78%
• YTD: 4.68%
• 6M: 7.65%
• 1Y: 16.23%
• 3Y*: 12.91%
• 5Y*: 6.92%
• 10Y*: —

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

EWA vs. FLSW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EWA iShares MSCI-Australia ETF	11.57%	13.35%	1.60%	13.81%	-5.92%	8.93%	8.29%	22.45%	-9.30%
FLSW Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF	4.68%	32.92%	-1.77%	16.79%	-18.14%	20.82%	13.25%	31.66%	-7.85%

Correlation

The correlation between EWA and FLSW is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.64
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2018	0.63

The correlation between EWA and FLSW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

EWA vs. FLSW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EWA	FLSW
Financial Services	41.4%	17.6%
Basic Materials	26.4%	7.8%
Consumer Cyclical	6.5%	5.7%
Real Estate	5.1%	1.2%
Healthcare	4.3%	37.3%
Industrials	4.2%	14.1%
Energy	4.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.6%	13.7%
Communication Services	1.9%	1.2%
Utilities	1.6%	0.2%
Technology	1.0%	1.3%

Return for Risk

EWA vs. FLSW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWA

EWA Risk / Return Rank: 26
EWA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
EWA Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
EWA Omega Ratio Rank: 23
EWA Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
EWA Martin Ratio Rank: 29

FLSW

FLSW Risk / Return Rank: 27
FLSW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
FLSW Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
FLSW Omega Ratio Rank: 26
FLSW Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
FLSW Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

EWA vs. FLSW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI-Australia ETF (EWA) and Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW). 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.

	EWA	FLSW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	0.89	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.15	1.38	-0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.16	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.33	1.05	+0.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.68	3.37	+0.31

EWA vs. FLSW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWA Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is comparable to the FLSW Sharpe Ratio of 0.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWA and FLSW, 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

EWA vs. FLSW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWA drawdown since its inception was -66.98%, which is greater than FLSW's maximum drawdown of -28.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWA and FLSW.

Drawdown Indicators

	EWA	FLSW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-66.98%	-28.16%	-38.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.01%	-13.38%	+3.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.91%	-13.38%	-8.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.87%	-28.16%	+3.29%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.54%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.44%	-3.66%	+0.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.32%	-5.96%	-5.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.62%	4.21%	-0.59%

Volatility

EWA vs. FLSW - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI-Australia ETF (EWA) has a higher volatility of 5.80% compared to Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW) at 4.97%. This indicates that EWA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLSW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EWA	FLSW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.80%	4.97%	+0.83%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.62%	12.56%	+2.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.40%	15.89%	+1.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.80%	15.77%	+4.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.62%	16.90%	+5.72%

EWA vs. FLSW - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWA has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FLSW's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

EWA vs. FLSW - Dividend Comparison

EWA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.88%, more than FLSW's 2.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWA iShares MSCI-Australia ETF	2.88%	3.21%	3.71%	3.72%	5.28%	5.08%	2.02%	3.97%	6.11%	4.44%	4.03%	5.48%
FLSW Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF	2.02%	2.12%	2.04%	2.36%	2.02%	1.86%	2.28%	1.15%	2.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EWA and FLSW in my portfolio?

EWA and FLSW have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EWA or FLSW?

EWA has higher volatility (5.80%) compared to FLSW (4.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWA dropped -66.98% vs FLSW's -28.16%.

Which ETF is better, EWA or FLSW?

On 5-year performance, FLSW leads with 6.92% vs 5.57% for EWA. On fees, FLSW is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLSW has been the lower-risk option at 4.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EWA or FLSW?

Over the 5-year period, FLSW has performed better with a 6.92% return vs 5.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EWA or FLSW?

FLSW is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EWA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EWA or FLSW?

EWA has the higher dividend yield at 2.88%, compared with 2.02% for FLSW.

What is the main difference between EWA and FLSW?

EWA is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FLSW is Europe Equities. EWA tracks MSCI Australia Index, while FLSW tracks FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EWA and 0.09% for FLSW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLSW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.89 vs 0.77), 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.