EWL vs. FLGB

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

EWL (iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF) and FLGB (Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF) are both Europe Equities funds - EWL tracks the MSCI Switzerland Index while FLGB tracks the FTSE UK RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EWL returned 6.83%/yr vs 11.43%/yr for FLGB. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EWL charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLGB.

Performance

EWL vs. FLGB - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EWL achieves a 5.94% return, which is significantly lower than FLGB's 6.88% return.

EWL

• 1D: -0.81%
• 1M: 1.28%
• 6M: 4.77%
• YTD: 5.94%
• 1Y: 16.13%
• 3Y*: 11.76%
• 5Y*: 6.83%
• 10Y*: 9.85%

FLGB

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: -0.02%
• 6M: 4.43%
• YTD: 6.88%
• 1Y: 19.32%
• 3Y*: 17.22%
• 5Y*: 11.43%
• 10Y*: —

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

EWL vs. FLGB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EWL iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF	5.94%	32.92%	-2.80%	17.67%	-18.89%	20.20%	11.80%	31.58%	-9.21%	2.74%
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	6.88%	33.73%	8.77%	14.33%	-6.00%	17.14%	-9.47%	23.23%	-11.60%	1.12%

Correlation

The correlation between EWL and FLGB is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.73

The correlation between EWL and FLGB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

EWL vs. FLGB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EWL	FLGB
Healthcare	36.5%	13.4%
Financial Services	17.5%	27.5%
Consumer Defensive	13.9%	14.2%
Industrials	12.4%	13.4%
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	5.1%
Basic Materials	7.2%	8.1%
Communication Services	1.2%	2.4%
Technology	0.9%	0.6%
Real Estate	0.9%	0.9%
Utilities	0.4%	4.7%
Energy	-	9.5%

Return for Risk

EWL vs. FLGB — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWL

EWL Risk / Return Rank: 33
EWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
EWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
EWL Omega Ratio Rank: 34
EWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
EWL Martin Ratio Rank: 33

FLGB

FLGB Risk / Return Rank: 47
FLGB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
FLGB Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
FLGB Omega Ratio Rank: 46
FLGB Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
FLGB Martin Ratio Rank: 48

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.

EWL vs. FLGB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF (EWL) and Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB). 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.

	EWL	FLGB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.02	1.33	-0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	1.95	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.24	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.20	1.89	-0.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.82	6.35	-2.53

EWL vs. FLGB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWL Sharpe Ratio is 1.02, which is comparable to the FLGB Sharpe Ratio of 1.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWL and FLGB, 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

EWL vs. FLGB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWL drawdown since its inception was -51.62%, which is greater than FLGB's maximum drawdown of -42.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWL and FLGB.

Drawdown Indicators

	EWL	FLGB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.62%	-42.61%	-9.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-10.26%	-3.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.48%	-13.13%	-0.35%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.99%	-25.90%	-3.09%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.44%	-3.11%	+0.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.06%	-6.65%	-4.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.24%	3.05%	+1.19%

Volatility

EWL vs. FLGB - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF (EWL) has a higher volatility of 4.76% compared to Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB) at 4.47%. This indicates that EWL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLGB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EWL	FLGB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.76%	4.47%	+0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.05%	12.61%	+0.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.94%	14.61%	+1.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.18%	16.62%	-0.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.28%	18.93%	-2.65%

EWL vs. FLGB - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWL has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FLGB's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

EWL vs. FLGB - Dividend Comparison

EWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, less than FLGB's 2.97% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWL iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF	1.75%	1.71%	2.21%	2.12%	2.04%	1.73%	1.45%	1.85%	2.56%	2.05%	2.75%	2.58%
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	2.97%	3.50%	4.42%	3.95%	4.23%	2.93%	2.67%	4.30%	3.92%	0.43%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EWL and FLGB in my portfolio?

EWL and FLGB have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EWL or FLGB?

EWL has higher volatility (4.76%) compared to FLGB (4.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWL dropped -51.62% vs FLGB's -42.61%.

Which ETF is better, EWL or FLGB?

On 5-year performance, FLGB leads with 11.43% vs 6.83% for EWL. On fees, FLGB is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLGB has been the lower-risk option at 4.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EWL or FLGB?

Over the 5-year period, FLGB has performed better with a 11.43% return vs 6.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EWL or FLGB?

FLGB is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EWL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EWL or FLGB?

FLGB has the higher dividend yield at 2.97%, compared with 1.75% for EWL.

What is the main difference between EWL and FLGB?

EWL tracks MSCI Switzerland Index, while FLGB tracks FTSE UK RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EWL and 0.09% for FLGB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLGB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.33 vs 1.02), 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.