PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FLAX vs. EEMV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FLAX vs. EEMV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Asia ex Japan ETF (FLAX) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLAX achieves a 29.31% return, which is significantly higher than EEMV's 17.74% return.


FLAX

1D
-1.11%
1M
10.05%
YTD
29.31%
6M
32.11%
1Y
58.93%
3Y*
25.00%
5Y*
7.95%
10Y*

EEMV

1D
-1.04%
1M
7.00%
YTD
17.74%
6M
18.90%
1Y
26.57%
3Y*
14.14%
5Y*
5.59%
10Y*
6.68%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLAX vs. EEMV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
FLAX
Franklin FTSE Asia ex Japan ETF
29.31%33.72%9.82%6.27%-18.88%-3.54%24.17%17.19%-12.02%
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
17.74%13.45%7.98%7.75%-13.94%5.05%6.90%7.83%-3.98%

Correlation

The correlation between FLAX and EEMV is 0.87, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.87

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.88

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.89

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 9, 2018

0.87

The correlation between FLAX and EEMV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLAX vs. EEMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FLAX
EEMV

Technology

39.7%
28.9%

Financial Services

17.2%
17.7%

Consumer Cyclical

10.2%
5.0%

Industrials

9.2%
6.7%

Communication Services

6.5%
11.2%

Basic Materials

4.2%
3.1%

Healthcare

3.3%
6.2%

Energy

3.0%
3.4%

Consumer Defensive

2.8%
6.8%

Utilities

2.1%
4.6%

Real Estate

2.0%
0.5%

Technology

FLAX
39.7%
EEMV
28.9%

Financial Services

FLAX
17.2%
EEMV
17.7%

Consumer Cyclical

FLAX
10.2%
EEMV
5.0%

Industrials

FLAX
9.2%
EEMV
6.7%

Communication Services

FLAX
6.5%
EEMV
11.2%

Basic Materials

FLAX
4.2%
EEMV
3.1%

Healthcare

FLAX
3.3%
EEMV
6.2%

Energy

FLAX
3.0%
EEMV
3.4%

Consumer Defensive

FLAX
2.8%
EEMV
6.8%

Utilities

FLAX
2.1%
EEMV
4.6%

Real Estate

FLAX
2.0%
EEMV
0.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

FLAX vs. EEMV — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLAX
FLAX Risk / Return Rank: 8787
Overall Rank
FLAX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9090
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLAX Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLAX Omega Ratio Rank: 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
FLAX Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLAX Martin Ratio Rank: 8686
Martin Ratio Rank

EEMV
EEMV Risk / Return Rank: 6161
Overall Rank
EEMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EEMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
EEMV Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
EEMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 5858
Calmar Ratio Rank
EEMV Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FLAX vs. EEMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Asia ex Japan ETF (FLAX) and iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV). 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.


FLAXEEMVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.57

1.40

+0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.56

2.89

+1.66

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

17.96

10.79

+7.17

FLAX vs. EEMV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLAX Sharpe Ratio is 3.11, which is higher than the EEMV Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLAX and EEMV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FLAXEEMVDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.11

2.04

+1.06

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.42

0.47

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.48

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.44

0.39

+0.05

Drawdowns

FLAX vs. EEMV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLAX drawdown since its inception was -42.51%, which is greater than EEMV's maximum drawdown of -31.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLAX and EEMV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FLAXEEMVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.51%

-31.56%

-10.95%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.99%

-9.22%

-3.77%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.29%

-12.47%

-6.82%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-38.75%

-21.90%

-16.85%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.11%

-1.08%

-0.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.41%

-7.97%

-7.44%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.29%

2.47%

+0.82%

Volatility

FLAX vs. EEMV - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE Asia ex Japan ETF (FLAX) has a higher volatility of 8.58% compared to iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF (EEMV) at 5.78%. This indicates that FLAX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EEMV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FLAXEEMVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.58%

5.78%

+2.80%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.54%

11.71%

+4.83%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.07%

13.06%

+6.01%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.02%

11.85%

+7.17%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.93%

13.86%

+6.07%

FLAX vs. EEMV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLAX has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than EEMV's 0.25% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

FLAX vs. EEMV - Dividend Comparison

FLAX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.83%, less than EEMV's 2.25% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EEMV
iShares MSCI Emerging Markets Min Vol Factor ETF
2.25%2.65%3.50%2.75%1.93%2.14%2.45%2.63%2.46%2.34%2.79%2.55%
FLAX
Franklin FTSE Asia ex Japan ETF
1.83%2.37%3.12%2.20%2.86%2.38%1.57%2.23%2.35%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


FLAX and EEMV have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FLAX has higher volatility (8.58%) compared to EEMV (5.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLAX dropped -42.51% vs EEMV's -31.56%.

On 5-year performance, FLAX leads with 7.95% vs 5.59% for EEMV. On fees, FLAX is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, EEMV has been the lower-risk option at 5.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FLAX has performed better with a 7.95% return vs 5.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLAX is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for EEMV.

EEMV has the higher dividend yield at 2.25%, compared with 1.83% for FLAX.

FLAX tracks FTSE Asia ex Japan RIC Capped Index, while EEMV tracks MSCI Emerging Markets Minimum Volatility Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLAX and 0.25% for EEMV.

FLAX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.11 vs 2.04), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FLAX and EEMV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer