EZBC vs. FLTW

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

EZBC (Franklin Bitcoin ETF) and FLTW (Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EZBC is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate - New York Variant, while FLTW is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EZBC returned -35.86% vs 124.89% for FLTW. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.19% expense ratio.

Performance

EZBC vs. FLTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Bitcoin ETF (EZBC) 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, EZBC achieves a -23.26% return, which is significantly lower than FLTW's 73.44% return.

EZBC

• 1D: -5.96%
• 1M: -14.30%
• YTD: -23.26%
• 6M: -26.35%
• 1Y: -35.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLTW

• 1D: 0.88%
• 1M: 21.62%
• YTD: 73.44%
• 6M: 79.07%
• 1Y: 124.89%
• 3Y*: 43.17%
• 5Y*: 22.11%
• 10Y*: —

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

EZBC vs. FLTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EZBC Franklin Bitcoin ETF	-23.26%	-6.56%	100.18%
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	73.44%	32.00%	21.88%

Correlation

The correlation between EZBC 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2024	0.31

The correlation between EZBC and FLTW shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (all time) to 0.44 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EZBC vs. FLTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

EZBC

EZBC Risk / Return Rank: 2
EZBC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
EZBC Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
EZBC Omega Ratio Rank: 2
EZBC Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
EZBC Martin Ratio Rank: 2

FLTW

FLTW Risk / Return Rank: 96
FLTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
FLTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
FLTW Omega Ratio Rank: 95
FLTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
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.

EZBC vs. FLTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Bitcoin ETF (EZBC) 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.

	EZBC	FLTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.83	4.83	-5.66
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-1.09	5.27	-6.36
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.88	1.74	-0.86
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.73	11.62	-12.34
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-1.27	36.67	-37.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EZBC vs. FLTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EZBC Sharpe Ratio is -0.83, which is lower than the FLTW Sharpe Ratio of 4.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EZBC 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EZBC	FLTW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.83	4.83	-5.66
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.99	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.96	-0.63

Drawdowns

EZBC vs. FLTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EZBC drawdown since its inception was -49.37%, which is greater than FLTW's maximum drawdown of -38.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EZBC and FLTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	EZBC	FLTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.37%	-38.00%	-11.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-49.37%	-10.87%	-38.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.45%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-38.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-46.58%	0.00%	-46.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.96%	-8.44%	-7.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	28.26%	3.45%	+24.81%

Volatility

EZBC vs. FLTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin Bitcoin ETF (EZBC) is 9.72%, while Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) has a volatility of 11.72%. This indicates that EZBC 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

	EZBC	FLTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.72%	11.72%	-2.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	34.80%	21.31%	+13.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	43.59%	26.00%	+17.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	50.07%	22.44%	+27.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	50.07%	21.78%	+28.29%

EZBC vs. FLTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both EZBC and FLTW have an expense ratio of 0.19%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

EZBC vs. FLTW - Dividend Comparison

EZBC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FLTW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
EZBC Franklin Bitcoin ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	1.45%	2.51%	1.89%	2.85%	3.16%	2.31%	2.14%	3.00%	1.06%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EZBC and FLTW in my portfolio?

EZBC 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, EZBC or FLTW?

FLTW has higher volatility (11.72%) compared to EZBC (9.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EZBC dropped -49.37% vs FLTW's -38.00%.

Which ETF is better, EZBC or FLTW?

On 1-year performance, FLTW leads with 124.89% vs -35.86% for EZBC. Both ETFs have the same 0.19% expense ratio. On volatility, EZBC has been the lower-risk option at 9.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EZBC or FLTW?

Over the 1-year period, FLTW has performed better with a 124.89% return vs -35.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EZBC or FLTW?

EZBC and FLTW have the same expense ratio: 0.19% per year.

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

FLTW has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 0.00% for EZBC.

What is the main difference between EZBC and FLTW?

EZBC is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while FLTW is Asia Pacific Equities. EZBC tracks CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate - New York Variant, while FLTW tracks FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.83 vs -0.83), 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.