FLAU vs. EWM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLAU (Franklin FTSE Australia ETF) and EWM (iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - FLAU tracks the FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index while EWM tracks the MSCI Malaysia Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLAU returned 5.98%/yr vs 4.53%/yr for EWM. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLAU charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for EWM.

Performance

FLAU vs. EWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) and iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM). 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 higher than EWM's 2.45% return.

FLAU

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

EWM

• 1D: -2.37%
• 1M: -5.11%
• YTD: 2.45%
• 6M: 6.54%
• 1Y: 20.74%
• 3Y*: 14.49%
• 5Y*: 4.53%
• 10Y*: 2.59%

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

FLAU vs. EWM - 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%
EWM iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF	2.45%	15.74%	19.46%	-3.61%	-6.00%	-7.40%	3.12%	-1.41%	-6.28%	7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between FLAU and EWM is 0.53, 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	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2017	0.47

The correlation between FLAU and EWM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLAU vs. EWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLAU	EWM
Financial Services	36.0%	46.6%
Basic Materials	26.2%	8.9%
Consumer Cyclical	6.6%	1.1%
Real Estate	6.4%	-
Industrials	6.4%	11.1%
Energy	5.7%	3.9%
Healthcare	4.9%	3.8%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	7.3%
Communication Services	1.7%	6.6%
Technology	1.2%	-
Utilities	0.8%	10.8%

Return for Risk

FLAU vs. EWM — 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

EWM

EWM Risk / Return Rank: 45
EWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
EWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
EWM Omega Ratio Rank: 40
EWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
EWM Martin Ratio Rank: 49

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. EWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) and iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM). 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	EWM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.00	1.49	-0.49
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.47	2.09	-0.62
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.26	-0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	2.65	-0.98
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.15	8.22	-3.08
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. EWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLAU Sharpe Ratio is 1.00, which is lower than the EWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLAU and EWM, 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	EWM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.00	1.49	-0.49
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.31	0.33	-0.02
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.16	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.07	+0.27

Drawdowns

FLAU vs. EWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLAU drawdown since its inception was -45.73%, smaller than the maximum EWM drawdown of -89.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLAU and EWM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLAU	EWM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.73%	-89.19%	+43.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.01%	-7.86%	-2.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.03%	-21.31%	-0.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.68%	-22.76%	-1.92%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-43.81%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.11%	-9.46%	+6.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.79%	-31.82%	+25.03%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.23%	2.53%	+0.70%

Volatility

FLAU vs. EWM - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) has a higher volatility of 5.45% compared to iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) at 4.15%. This indicates that FLAU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLAU	EWM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.45%	4.15%	+1.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.66%	10.86%	+2.80%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.63%	13.99%	+2.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.61%	13.70%	+5.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.58%	16.29%	+7.29%

FLAU vs. EWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLAU has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than EWM's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLAU vs. EWM - Dividend Comparison

FLAU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.94%, less than EWM's 3.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWM iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF	3.33%	3.41%	3.32%	3.47%	3.00%	6.48%	1.89%	2.91%	3.84%	5.58%	5.97%	37.54%
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 EWM in my portfolio?

FLAU and EWM have a correlation of 0.53, 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 EWM?

FLAU has higher volatility (5.45%) compared to EWM (4.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLAU dropped -45.73% vs EWM's -89.19%.

Which ETF is better, FLAU or EWM?

On 5-year performance, FLAU leads with 5.98% vs 4.53% for EWM. On fees, FLAU is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, EWM 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, FLAU or EWM?

Over the 5-year period, FLAU has performed better with a 5.98% return vs 4.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLAU or EWM?

FLAU is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for EWM.

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

EWM has the higher dividend yield at 3.33%, compared with 2.94% for FLAU.

What is the main difference between FLAU and EWM?

FLAU tracks FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index, while EWM tracks MSCI Malaysia Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for FLAU and 0.49% for EWM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 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.