EWH vs. FLTW

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

EWH (iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF) and FLTW (Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - EWH tracks the MSCI Hong Kong Index while FLTW tracks the FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EWH returned -0.71%/yr vs 23.20%/yr for FLTW. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EWH charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLTW.

Performance

EWH vs. FLTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF (EWH) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EWH achieves a 2.00% return, which is significantly lower than FLTW's 79.72% return.

EWH

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: -7.73%
• YTD: 2.00%
• 6M: 0.16%
• 1Y: 17.74%
• 3Y*: 8.52%
• 5Y*: -0.71%
• 10Y*: 4.79%

FLTW

• 1D: 1.68%
• 1M: 15.81%
• YTD: 79.72%
• 6M: 83.89%
• 1Y: 124.51%
• 3Y*: 44.92%
• 5Y*: 23.20%
• 10Y*: —

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

EWH vs. FLTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EWH iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF	2.00%	34.50%	0.00%	-13.87%	-6.81%	-3.49%	4.17%	10.74%	-8.76%	4.44%
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	79.72%	32.00%	16.68%	30.05%	-27.51%	29.46%	29.77%	31.23%	-9.32%	-1.28%

Correlation

The correlation between EWH and FLTW is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.51

The correlation between EWH and FLTW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.43 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

EWH vs. FLTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EWH	FLTW
Financial Services	43.9%	11.2%
Industrials	18.3%	3.3%
Real Estate	18.0%	-
Utilities	11.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	3.9%	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	0.7%
Communication Services	1.7%	1.4%
Basic Materials	-	2.5%
Energy	-	0.1%
Healthcare	-	0.6%
Technology	-	78.7%

Return for Risk

EWH vs. FLTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWH

EWH Risk / Return Rank: 30
EWH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
EWH Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
EWH Omega Ratio Rank: 28
EWH Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
EWH Martin Ratio Rank: 32

FLTW

FLTW Risk / Return Rank: 96
FLTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
FLTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
FLTW Omega Ratio Rank: 95
FLTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
FLTW Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

EWH vs. FLTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF (EWH) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW). 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.

	EWH	FLTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.06	4.41	-3.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.56	4.66	-3.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.68	-0.50
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.38	11.52	-10.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.55	34.60	-30.06

EWH vs. FLTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWH Sharpe Ratio is 1.06, which is lower than the FLTW Sharpe Ratio of 4.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWH and FLTW, 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

EWH vs. FLTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWH drawdown since its inception was -66.44%, which is greater than FLTW's maximum drawdown of -38.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWH and FLTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	EWH	FLTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-66.44%	-38.00%	-28.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.91%	-10.87%	-2.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.93%	-26.45%	+1.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-41.28%	-38.00%	-3.28%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.71%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.71%	0.00%	-11.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.47%	-8.41%	-11.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.91%	3.61%	+0.30%

Volatility

EWH vs. FLTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF (EWH) is 5.30%, while Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) has a volatility of 14.69%. This indicates that EWH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EWH	FLTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.30%	14.69%	-9.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.57%	24.19%	-11.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.78%	28.45%	-11.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.11%	23.07%	-2.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.59%	22.11%	-2.52%

EWH vs. FLTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWH has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTW's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

EWH vs. FLTW - Dividend Comparison

EWH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.86%, more than FLTW's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWH iShares MSCI Hong Kong ETF	4.86%	5.20%	4.17%	4.28%	2.91%	2.78%	2.56%	2.71%	2.93%	4.35%	3.08%	2.63%
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	1.33%	2.51%	1.89%	2.85%	3.16%	2.31%	2.14%	3.00%	1.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EWH and FLTW in my portfolio?

EWH and FLTW have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EWH or FLTW?

FLTW has higher volatility (14.69%) compared to EWH (5.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWH dropped -66.44% vs FLTW's -38.00%.

Which ETF is better, EWH or FLTW?

On 5-year performance, FLTW leads with 23.20% vs -0.71% for EWH. On fees, FLTW is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, EWH has been the lower-risk option at 5.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EWH or FLTW?

Over the 5-year period, FLTW has performed better with a 23.20% return vs -0.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EWH or FLTW?

FLTW is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for EWH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EWH or FLTW?

EWH has the higher dividend yield at 4.86%, compared with 1.33% for FLTW.

What is the main difference between EWH and FLTW?

EWH tracks MSCI Hong Kong Index, while FLTW tracks FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for EWH and 0.19% for FLTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.41 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.