PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
EWM vs. FTAL.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

EWM vs. FTAL.L

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EWM (iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF) and FTAL.L (SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EWM is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Malaysia Index, while FTAL.L is a Europe Equities fund tracking the FTSE AllSh TR GBP. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, EWM returned 2.79%/yr vs 8.69%/yr for FTAL.L. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EWM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for FTAL.L.

Performance

EWM vs. FTAL.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) and SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF (FTAL.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

EWM is traded in USD, while FTAL.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the FTAL.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EWM achieves a 2.89% return, which is significantly lower than FTAL.L's 6.65% return. Over the past 10 years, EWM has underperformed FTAL.L with an annualized return of 2.79%, while FTAL.L has yielded a comparatively higher 8.69% annualized return.

EWM

1D
0.25%
1M
-6.82%
YTD
2.89%
6M
6.00%
1Y
20.41%
3Y*
14.97%
5Y*
4.69%
10Y*
2.79%

FTAL.L

1D
1.60%
1M
1.47%
YTD
6.65%
6M
10.38%
1Y
19.66%
3Y*
16.79%
5Y*
9.18%
10Y*
8.69%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EWM vs. FTAL.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EWM
iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF		2.89%15.74%19.46%-3.61%-6.00%-7.40%3.12%-1.41%-6.28%24.25%
FTAL.L
SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF		6.65%32.49%7.21%13.61%-10.20%16.12%-7.20%24.06%-14.81%23.73%

Correlation

The correlation between EWM and FTAL.L is 0.50, 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

0.50

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.41

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.42

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.40

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2012

0.42

The correlation between EWM and FTAL.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.40 (10 years) to 0.50 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EWM vs. FTAL.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
EWM
FTAL.L

Financial Services

46.6%
24.2%

Industrials

11.1%
14.5%

Utilities

10.8%
5.1%

Basic Materials

8.9%
8.4%

Consumer Defensive

7.3%
12.1%

Communication Services

6.6%
3.0%

Energy

3.9%
10.9%

Healthcare

3.8%
12.8%

Consumer Cyclical

1.1%
5.6%

Real Estate

-

1.7%

Technology

-

1.7%

Financial Services

EWM
46.6%
FTAL.L
24.2%

Industrials

EWM
11.1%
FTAL.L
14.5%

Utilities

EWM
10.8%
FTAL.L
5.1%

Basic Materials

EWM
8.9%
FTAL.L
8.4%

Consumer Defensive

EWM
7.3%
FTAL.L
12.1%

Communication Services

EWM
6.6%
FTAL.L
3.0%

Energy

EWM
3.9%
FTAL.L
10.9%

Healthcare

EWM
3.8%
FTAL.L
12.8%

Consumer Cyclical

EWM
1.1%
FTAL.L
5.6%

Real Estate

EWM

-

FTAL.L
1.7%

Technology

EWM

-

FTAL.L
1.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF

SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF

Often compared with EWM:
EWM vs. EIDOEWM vs. EWYEWM vs. EWTEWM vs. EPIEWM vs. AAXJEWM vs. VOOEWM vs. SCHD
Often compared with FTAL.L:
FTAL.L vs. CUKX.LFTAL.L vs. VUKG.LFTAL.L vs. EUEA.ASFTAL.L vs. NG.LFTAL.L vs. REL.LFTAL.L vs. LWDB.LFTAL.L vs. GBPG.L

Return for Risk

EWM vs. FTAL.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
EWM
EWM Risk / Return Rank: 4444
Overall Rank
EWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 4343
Sortino Ratio Rank
EWM Omega Ratio Rank: 4141
Omega Ratio Rank
EWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 4848
Calmar Ratio Rank
EWM Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
Martin Ratio Rank
FTAL.L
FTAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
FTAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FTAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6666
Sortino Ratio Rank
FTAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
FTAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
FTAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5050
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EWM vs. FTAL.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) and SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF (FTAL.L). 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.

EWMFTAL.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.36
1.36

-0.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.92
1.97

-0.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.25

-0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.09

1.87

+0.22

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.65

6.17

+0.48

EWM vs. FTAL.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWM Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is comparable to the FTAL.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWM and FTAL.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

EWM vs. FTAL.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWM drawdown since its inception was -89.19%, which is greater than FTAL.L's maximum drawdown of -43.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWM and FTAL.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

EWMFTAL.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-89.19%

-43.10%

-46.09%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.14%

-9.92%

+0.78%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.31%

-13.73%

-7.58%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.76%

-28.40%

+5.64%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-43.81%

-43.10%

-0.71%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-9.08%

-3.30%

-5.78%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.80%

-7.78%

-24.02%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.87%

3.01%

-0.14%

Volatility

EWM vs. FTAL.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) is 3.97%, while SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF (FTAL.L) has a volatility of 4.71%. This indicates that EWM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FTAL.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

EWMFTAL.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.97%

4.71%

-0.74%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.95%

11.47%

-0.52%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.10%

13.63%

+0.47%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.72%

16.62%

-2.90%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.27%

18.29%

-2.02%

EWM vs. FTAL.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

EWM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than FTAL.L's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

EWM vs. FTAL.L - Dividend Comparison

EWM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.32%, while FTAL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EWM
iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF		3.32%3.41%3.32%3.47%3.00%6.48%1.89%2.91%3.84%5.58%5.97%37.54%
FTAL.L
SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

EWM and FTAL.L have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FTAL.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FTAL.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for EWM.

EWM is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FTAL.L is Europe Equities. EWM tracks MSCI Malaysia Index, while FTAL.L tracks FTSE AllSh TR GBP. They also come from different issuers: iShares and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for EWM and 0.20% for FTAL.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EWM and FTAL.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer