FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

FEMD.L (Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF) and FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - FEMD.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, while FLQA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FEMD.L returned 7.32%/yr vs 12.74%/yr for FLQA.L. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FEMD.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLQA.L.

Performance

FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMD.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEMD.L achieves a 21.79% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 30.36% return.

FEMD.L

• 1D: -1.56%
• 1M: -12.50%
• 6M: 16.35%
• YTD: 21.79%
• 1Y: 31.65%
• 3Y*: 19.14%
• 5Y*: 7.32%
• 10Y*: —

FLQA.L

• 1D: -1.70%
• 1M: -12.65%
• 6M: 21.93%
• YTD: 30.36%
• 1Y: 47.65%
• 3Y*: 23.13%
• 5Y*: 12.74%
• 10Y*: —

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

FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FEMD.L Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF	21.79%	20.69%	6.70%	10.14%	-15.65%	7.02%	9.84%	2.09%
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	30.36%	20.59%	9.64%	6.42%	-2.58%	5.56%	3.57%	-1.25%

Correlation

The correlation between FEMD.L and FLQA.L is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 11, 2019	0.79

The correlation between FEMD.L and FLQA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEMD.L

FEMD.L Risk / Return Rank: 63
FEMD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
FEMD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
FEMD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 69
FEMD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
FEMD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 62

FLQA.L

FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 78
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 77
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMD.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.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.

	FEMD.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	1.97	-0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.32	2.56	-0.24
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.35	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.18	3.07	-0.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.40	10.98	-2.57

FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEMD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is comparable to the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEMD.L and FLQA.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.

Drawdowns

FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEMD.L drawdown since its inception was -27.56%, which is greater than FLQA.L's maximum drawdown of -20.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEMD.L and FLQA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEMD.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.56%	-20.97%	-6.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.48%	-15.46%	+0.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.48%	-19.58%	+5.10%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.44%	-19.58%	-4.86%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.48%	-15.46%	+0.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.25%	-4.06%	-4.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.76%	4.33%	-0.57%

Volatility

FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMD.L) is 8.70%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 10.51%. This indicates that FEMD.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEMD.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.70%	10.51%	-1.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.18%	21.94%	-4.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.93%	24.07%	-5.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.70%	16.61%	-0.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.00%	17.88%	+0.12%

FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEMD.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEMD.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

FEMD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.02%, while FLQA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FEMD.L Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF	3.02%	3.48%	3.75%	3.69%	4.00%	3.26%	2.84%	0.36%
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEMD.L and FLQA.L in my portfolio?

FEMD.L and FLQA.L have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FEMD.L or FLQA.L?

On fees, FLQA.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEMD.L or FLQA.L?

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FEMD.L.

What is the main difference between FEMD.L and FLQA.L?

FEMD.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while FLQA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. FEMD.L tracks MSCI EM NR USD, while FLQA.L tracks Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FEMD.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.