EWP vs. FLGB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EWP (iShares MSCI Spain ETF) and FLGB (Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF) are both Europe Equities funds - EWP tracks the MSCI Spain Index while FLGB tracks the FTSE UK RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EWP returned 18.75%/yr vs 10.74%/yr for FLGB. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EWP charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLGB.

Performance

EWP vs. FLGB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP) 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, EWP achieves a 11.25% return, which is significantly higher than FLGB's 4.59% return.

EWP

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: 6.13%
• YTD: 11.25%
• 6M: 11.48%
• 1Y: 41.28%
• 3Y*: 33.03%
• 5Y*: 18.75%
• 10Y*: 13.42%

FLGB

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: -1.81%
• YTD: 4.59%
• 6M: 4.84%
• 1Y: 18.93%
• 3Y*: 17.39%
• 5Y*: 10.74%
• 10Y*: —

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

EWP vs. FLGB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EWP iShares MSCI Spain ETF	11.25%	78.03%	5.70%	30.26%	-5.18%	0.25%	-3.94%	11.93%	-15.32%	0.39%
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	4.59%	33.73%	8.77%	14.33%	-6.00%	17.14%	-9.47%	23.23%	-11.60%	1.12%

Correlation

The correlation between EWP and FLGB is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.74

The correlation between EWP and FLGB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

EWP vs. FLGB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EWP	FLGB
Financial Services	42.4%	27.1%
Utilities	21.4%	4.7%
Industrials	16.3%	13.3%
Technology	5.6%	0.6%
Consumer Cyclical	4.6%	4.8%
Energy	4.1%	10.2%
Communication Services	2.8%	2.5%
Real Estate	2.8%	0.8%
Healthcare	1.3%	12.9%
Basic Materials	-	8.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	13.9%

Return for Risk

EWP vs. FLGB — Risk / Return Rank

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

EWP

EWP Risk / Return Rank: 71
EWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
EWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EWP Omega Ratio Rank: 67
EWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
EWP Martin Ratio Rank: 73

FLGB

FLGB Risk / Return Rank: 39
FLGB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FLGB Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FLGB Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FLGB Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
FLGB Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

EWP vs. FLGB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	EWP	FLGB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	1.32	+0.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	1.91	+1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.24	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.64	1.85	+1.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.92	6.43	+6.49

EWP vs. FLGB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EWP Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is higher than the FLGB Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EWP 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

EWP vs. FLGB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EWP drawdown since its inception was -61.19%, which is greater than FLGB's maximum drawdown of -42.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EWP and FLGB.

Drawdown Indicators

	EWP	FLGB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.19%	-42.61%	-18.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.38%	-10.26%	-1.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.19%	-13.13%	+0.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.63%	-25.90%	-5.73%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.36%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.72%	-5.18%	+4.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.40%	-6.67%	-14.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.20%	2.95%	+0.25%

Volatility

EWP vs. FLGB - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP) has a higher volatility of 5.49% compared to Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB) at 4.15%. This indicates that EWP'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

	EWP	FLGB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.49%	4.15%	+1.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.07%	12.36%	+3.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.81%	14.49%	+4.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.29%	16.63%	+3.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.56%	18.95%	+2.61%

EWP vs. FLGB - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EWP vs. FLGB - Dividend Comparison

EWP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.82%, more than FLGB's 1.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWP iShares MSCI Spain ETF	2.82%	2.27%	4.35%	2.70%	3.07%	3.29%	2.56%	3.72%	3.69%	2.72%	4.65%	3.85%
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	1.68%	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 EWP and FLGB in my portfolio?

EWP and FLGB have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EWP or FLGB?

EWP has higher volatility (5.49%) compared to FLGB (4.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EWP dropped -61.19% vs FLGB's -42.61%.

Which ETF is better, EWP or FLGB?

On 5-year performance, EWP leads with 18.75% vs 10.74% for FLGB. On fees, FLGB is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLGB has been the lower-risk option at 4.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EWP or FLGB?

Over the 5-year period, EWP has performed better with a 18.75% return vs 10.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EWP or FLGB?

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

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

EWP has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 1.68% for FLGB.

What is the main difference between EWP and FLGB?

EWP tracks MSCI Spain 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 EWP and 0.09% for FLGB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 1.32), 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.