FLAU vs. EEMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLAU (Franklin FTSE Australia ETF) and EEMA (iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - FLAU tracks the FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index while EEMA tracks the MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLAU returned 5.98%/yr vs 7.05%/yr for EEMA. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLAU charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EEMA.

Performance

FLAU vs. EEMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLAU achieves a 10.47% return, which is significantly lower than EEMA's 27.78% return.

FLAU

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: 1.12%
• YTD: 10.47%
• 6M: 12.59%
• 1Y: 16.61%
• 3Y*: 12.97%
• 5Y*: 5.98%
• 10Y*: —

EEMA

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: 9.00%
• YTD: 27.78%
• 6M: 30.96%
• 1Y: 56.77%
• 3Y*: 24.08%
• 5Y*: 7.05%
• 10Y*: 10.80%

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

FLAU vs. EEMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF	10.47%	15.95%	1.81%	12.58%	-5.58%	9.90%	11.00%	23.38%	-10.17%	1.89%
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	27.78%	33.27%	10.23%	6.57%	-21.49%	-4.22%	25.17%	18.60%	-15.76%	1.27%

Correlation

The correlation between FLAU and EEMA is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2017	0.62

The correlation between FLAU and EEMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLAU vs. EEMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLAU	EEMA
Financial Services	36.0%	15.9%
Basic Materials	26.2%	4.5%
Consumer Cyclical	6.6%	11.3%
Real Estate	6.4%	0.8%
Industrials	6.4%	8.8%
Energy	5.7%	3.2%
Healthcare	4.9%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	2.8%
Communication Services	1.7%	6.0%
Technology	1.2%	41.2%
Utilities	0.8%	1.8%

Return for Risk

FLAU vs. EEMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLAU

FLAU Risk / Return Rank: 29
FLAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
FLAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
FLAU Omega Ratio Rank: 26
FLAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
FLAU Martin Ratio Rank: 34

EEMA

EEMA Risk / Return Rank: 81
EEMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
EEMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
EEMA Omega Ratio Rank: 82
EEMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
EEMA Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

FLAU vs. EEMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA). 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.

	FLAU	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.00	2.80	-1.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.47	3.64	-2.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.50	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	3.99	-2.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.15	15.03	-9.88
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLAU vs. EEMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLAU Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is lower than the EEMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLAU and EEMA, 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

	FLAU	EEMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.00	2.80	-1.79
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31	0.35	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.52	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.37	-0.04

Drawdowns

FLAU vs. EEMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLAU drawdown since its inception was -45.73%, roughly equal to the maximum EEMA drawdown of -44.18%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLAU and EEMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLAU	EEMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.73%	-44.18%	-1.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.01%	-14.30%	+4.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.03%	-20.23%	-1.80%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.68%	-40.67%	+15.99%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.11%	-1.17%	-1.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.79%	-13.97%	+7.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.23%	3.79%	-0.56%

Volatility

FLAU vs. EEMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) is 5.45%, while iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF (EEMA) has a volatility of 8.53%. This indicates that FLAU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EEMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLAU	EEMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.45%	8.53%	-3.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.66%	17.40%	-3.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.63%	20.39%	-3.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.61%	20.41%	-0.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.58%	20.87%	+2.71%

FLAU vs. EEMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLAU has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMA's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLAU vs. EEMA - Dividend Comparison

FLAU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.94%, more than EEMA's 1.16% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EEMA iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Asia ETF	1.16%	1.48%	1.74%	2.02%	1.78%	2.19%	1.15%	1.86%	2.17%	1.74%	1.74%	2.44%
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF	2.94%	3.25%	3.37%	3.62%	5.91%	5.14%	2.18%	4.37%	4.34%	0.18%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLAU and EEMA in my portfolio?

FLAU and EEMA have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLAU or EEMA?

EEMA has higher volatility (8.53%) compared to FLAU (5.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLAU dropped -45.73% vs EEMA's -44.18%.

Which ETF is better, FLAU or EEMA?

On 5-year performance, EEMA leads with 7.05% vs 5.98% for FLAU. On fees, FLAU is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLAU has been the lower-risk option at 5.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLAU or EEMA?

Over the 5-year period, EEMA has performed better with a 7.05% return vs 5.98%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLAU or EEMA?

FLAU is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EEMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLAU or EEMA?

FLAU has the higher dividend yield at 2.94%, compared with 1.16% for EEMA.

What is the main difference between FLAU and EEMA?

FLAU tracks FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index, while EEMA tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Asia Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for FLAU and 0.50% for EEMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EEMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.80 vs 1.00), 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.