FLGB vs. FLSW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLGB (Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF) and FLSW (Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF) are both Europe Equities funds from Franklin Templeton - FLGB tracks the FTSE UK RIC Capped Index while FLSW tracks the FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLGB returned 10.74%/yr vs 7.06%/yr for FLSW. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.09% expense ratio.

Performance

FLGB vs. FLSW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB) and Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with FLGB having a 4.59% return and FLSW slightly lower at 4.52%.

FLGB

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: -1.81%
• YTD: 4.59%
• 6M: 4.84%
• 1Y: 18.93%
• 3Y*: 17.39%
• 5Y*: 10.74%
• 10Y*: —

FLSW

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: -0.04%
• YTD: 4.52%
• 6M: 3.79%
• 1Y: 17.63%
• 3Y*: 12.98%
• 5Y*: 7.06%
• 10Y*: —

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

FLGB vs. FLSW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	4.59%	33.73%	8.77%	14.33%	-6.00%	17.14%	-9.47%	23.23%	-12.40%
FLSW Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF	4.52%	32.92%	-1.77%	16.79%	-18.14%	20.82%	13.25%	31.66%	-7.85%

Correlation

The correlation between FLGB and FLSW is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2018	0.72

The correlation between FLGB and FLSW has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLGB vs. FLSW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLGB	FLSW
Financial Services	27.1%	17.6%
Consumer Defensive	13.9%	13.7%
Industrials	13.3%	14.1%
Healthcare	12.9%	37.3%
Energy	10.2%	-
Basic Materials	8.8%	7.8%
Consumer Cyclical	4.8%	5.7%
Utilities	4.7%	0.2%
Communication Services	2.5%	1.2%
Real Estate	0.8%	1.2%
Technology	0.6%	1.3%

Return for Risk

FLGB vs. FLSW — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLGB

FLGB Risk / Return Rank: 39
FLGB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FLGB Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FLGB Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FLGB Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
FLGB Martin Ratio Rank: 42

FLSW

FLSW Risk / Return Rank: 31
FLSW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
FLSW Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
FLSW Omega Ratio Rank: 31
FLSW Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
FLSW Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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.

FLGB vs. FLSW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB) and Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW). 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.

	FLGB	FLSW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.32	1.14	+0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	1.71	+0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.20	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.85	1.32	+0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.43	4.20	+2.23

FLGB vs. FLSW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLGB Sharpe Ratio is 1.32, which is comparable to the FLSW Sharpe Ratio of 1.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLGB and FLSW, 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

FLGB vs. FLSW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLGB drawdown since its inception was -42.61%, which is greater than FLSW's maximum drawdown of -28.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLGB and FLSW.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLGB	FLSW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.61%	-28.16%	-14.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.26%	-13.38%	+3.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.13%	-13.38%	+0.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.90%	-28.16%	+2.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.18%	-3.81%	-1.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.67%	-5.95%	-0.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.95%	4.21%	-1.26%

Volatility

FLGB vs. FLSW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB) is 4.15%, while Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW) has a volatility of 4.57%. This indicates that FLGB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLSW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLGB	FLSW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.15%	4.57%	-0.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.36%	12.43%	-0.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.49%	15.65%	-1.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.63%	15.76%	+0.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.95%	16.88%	+2.07%

FLGB vs. FLSW - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FLGB and FLSW have an expense ratio of 0.09%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FLGB vs. FLSW - Dividend Comparison

FLGB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.68%, more than FLSW's 0.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	1.68%	3.50%	4.42%	3.95%	4.23%	2.93%	2.67%	4.30%	3.92%	0.43%
FLSW Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF	0.12%	2.12%	2.04%	2.36%	2.02%	1.86%	2.28%	1.15%	2.86%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLGB and FLSW in my portfolio?

FLGB and FLSW have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLGB or FLSW?

FLSW has higher volatility (4.57%) compared to FLGB (4.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLGB dropped -42.61% vs FLSW's -28.16%.

Which ETF is better, FLGB or FLSW?

On 5-year performance, FLGB leads with 10.74% vs 7.06% for FLSW. Both ETFs have the same 0.09% expense ratio. On volatility, FLGB 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, FLGB or FLSW?

Over the 5-year period, FLGB has performed better with a 10.74% return vs 7.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLGB or FLSW?

FLGB and FLSW have the same expense ratio: 0.09% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLGB or FLSW?

FLGB has the higher dividend yield at 1.68%, compared with 0.12% for FLSW.

What is the main difference between FLGB and FLSW?

FLGB tracks FTSE UK RIC Capped Index, while FLSW tracks FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLGB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 vs 1.14), 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.