EWL vs. FLSW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EWL (iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF) and FLSW (Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF) are both Europe Equities funds - EWL tracks the MSCI Switzerland Index while FLSW tracks the FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EWL returned 6.65%/yr vs 7.06%/yr for FLSW. Their correlation of 0.95 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EWL charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLSW.

Performance

EWL vs. FLSW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with EWL having a 4.35% return and FLSW slightly higher at 4.52%.

EWL

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: -0.12%
• YTD: 4.35%
• 6M: 3.59%
• 1Y: 17.04%
• 3Y*: 12.55%
• 5Y*: 6.65%
• 10Y*: 10.25%

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)

EWL vs. FLSW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EWL iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF	4.35%	32.92%	-2.80%	17.67%	-18.89%	20.20%	11.80%	31.58%	-8.49%
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 EWL and FLSW is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.98
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.99
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.99
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2018	0.95

The correlation between EWL and FLSW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

EWL vs. FLSW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EWL	FLSW
Healthcare	33.3%	37.3%
Financial Services	17.7%	17.6%
Consumer Defensive	15.9%	13.7%
Industrials	12.6%	14.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.8%	5.7%
Basic Materials	7.4%	7.8%
Communication Services	1.3%	1.2%
Technology	1.1%	1.3%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.2%
Utilities	0.4%	0.2%
Energy	-	-

Return for Risk

EWL vs. FLSW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWL

EWL Risk / Return Rank: 30
EWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
EWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
EWL Omega Ratio Rank: 30
EWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
EWL Martin Ratio Rank: 30

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.

EWL vs. FLSW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	EWL	FLSW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.08	1.14	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.61	1.71	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.20	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.27	1.32	-0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.04	4.20	-0.16

EWL vs. FLSW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWL Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is comparable to the FLSW Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWL 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

EWL vs. FLSW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWL drawdown since its inception was -51.62%, which is greater than FLSW's maximum drawdown of -28.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWL and FLSW.

Drawdown Indicators

	EWL	FLSW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.62%	-28.16%	-23.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.48%	-13.38%	-0.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.48%	-13.38%	-0.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.99%	-28.16%	-0.83%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-28.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.86%	-3.81%	-0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.08%	-5.95%	-5.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.23%	4.21%	+0.02%

Volatility

EWL vs. FLSW - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF (EWL) and Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW) have volatilities of 4.71% and 4.57%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EWL	FLSW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.71%	4.57%	+0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.64%	12.43%	+0.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.86%	15.65%	+0.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.12%	15.76%	+0.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.30%	16.88%	-0.58%

EWL vs. FLSW - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EWL vs. FLSW - Dividend Comparison

EWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, more than FLSW's 0.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWL iShares MSCI Switzerland ETF	1.77%	1.71%	2.21%	2.12%	2.04%	1.73%	1.45%	1.85%	2.56%	2.05%	2.75%	2.58%
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 EWL and FLSW in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.98, EWL and FLSW 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 is riskier, EWL or FLSW?

EWL has higher volatility (4.71%) compared to FLSW (4.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWL dropped -51.62% vs FLSW's -28.16%.

Which ETF is better, EWL or FLSW?

On 5-year performance, FLSW leads with 7.06% vs 6.65% for EWL. 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, EWL or FLSW?

Over the 5-year period, FLSW has performed better with a 7.06% return vs 6.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EWL or FLSW?

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

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

EWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.12% for FLSW.

What is the main difference between EWL and FLSW?

EWL tracks MSCI Switzerland 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 EWL and 0.09% for FLSW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLSW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.14 vs 1.08), 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.