EWG vs. FLSW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EWG (iShares MSCI Germany ETF) and FLSW (Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF) are both Europe Equities funds - EWG tracks the MSCI Germany Index while FLSW tracks the FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EWG returned 5.88%/yr vs 7.06%/yr for FLSW. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EWG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLSW.

Performance

EWG vs. FLSW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Germany ETF (EWG) 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, EWG achieves a -1.64% return, which is significantly lower than FLSW's 4.52% return.

EWG

• 1D: -1.35%
• 1M: -2.58%
• YTD: -1.64%
• 6M: -1.50%
• 1Y: 2.58%
• 3Y*: 15.95%
• 5Y*: 5.88%
• 10Y*: 8.23%

FLSW

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: -0.04%
• YTD: 4.52%
• 6M: 3.79%
• 1Y: 17.63%
• 3Y*: 12.98%
• 5Y*: 7.06%
• 10Y*: —

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

EWG vs. FLSW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EWG iShares MSCI Germany ETF	-1.64%	35.79%	9.79%	23.35%	-22.27%	5.84%	10.09%	19.15%	-21.16%
FLSW Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF	4.52%	32.92%	-1.77%	16.79%	-18.14%	20.82%	13.25%	31.66%	-7.85%

Correlation

The correlation between EWG and FLSW is 0.73, 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	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.72
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2018	0.71

The correlation between EWG and FLSW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

EWG vs. FLSW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EWG	FLSW
Industrials	29.9%	14.1%
Financial Services	20.6%	17.6%
Technology	16.3%	1.3%
Consumer Cyclical	8.7%	5.7%
Communication Services	6.5%	1.2%
Healthcare	6.0%	37.3%
Basic Materials	5.5%	7.8%
Utilities	4.3%	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.3%	13.7%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.2%
Energy	-	-

Return for Risk

EWG vs. FLSW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWG

EWG Risk / Return Rank: 10
EWG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
EWG Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
EWG Omega Ratio Rank: 10
EWG Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
EWG Martin Ratio Rank: 11

FLSW

FLSW Risk / Return Rank: 31
FLSW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
FLSW Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
FLSW Omega Ratio Rank: 31
FLSW Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
FLSW Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

EWG vs. FLSW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Germany ETF (EWG) 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.

	EWG	FLSW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.15	1.14	-0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.33	1.71	-1.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.20	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.18	1.32	-1.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.52	4.20	-3.68

EWG vs. FLSW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWG Sharpe Ratio is 0.15, which is lower than the FLSW Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWG 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

EWG vs. FLSW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWG drawdown since its inception was -67.57%, which is greater than FLSW's maximum drawdown of -28.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWG and FLSW.

Drawdown Indicators

	EWG	FLSW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.57%	-28.16%	-39.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.54%	-13.38%	-1.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.81%	-13.38%	-2.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.59%	-28.16%	-14.43%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.80%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.19%	-3.81%	-2.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.17%	-5.95%	-13.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.01%	4.21%	+0.80%

Volatility

EWG vs. FLSW - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Germany ETF (EWG) has a higher volatility of 5.20% compared to Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW) at 4.57%. This indicates that EWG'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

	EWG	FLSW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.20%	4.57%	+0.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.63%	12.43%	+2.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.57%	15.65%	+1.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.53%	15.76%	+4.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.84%	16.88%	+3.96%

EWG vs. FLSW - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than FLSW's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

EWG vs. FLSW - Dividend Comparison

EWG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.03%, more than FLSW's 0.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWG iShares MSCI Germany ETF	2.03%	1.60%	2.38%	2.56%	3.24%	2.70%	1.67%	2.51%	2.93%	2.06%	2.35%	1.93%
FLSW Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF	0.12%	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 EWG and FLSW in my portfolio?

EWG and FLSW have a correlation of 0.73, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EWG or FLSW?

EWG has higher volatility (5.20%) compared to FLSW (4.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWG dropped -67.57% vs FLSW's -28.16%.

Which ETF is better, EWG or FLSW?

On 5-year performance, FLSW leads with 7.06% vs 5.88% for EWG. On fees, FLSW is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLSW has been the lower-risk option at 4.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EWG or FLSW?

Over the 5-year period, FLSW has performed better with a 7.06% return vs 5.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EWG or FLSW?

FLSW is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for EWG.

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

EWG has the higher dividend yield at 2.03%, compared with 0.12% for FLSW.

What is the main difference between EWG and FLSW?

EWG tracks MSCI Germany Index, while FLSW tracks FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for EWG and 0.09% for FLSW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLSW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 0.15), 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.