FLKR vs. MINV

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLKR (Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF) and MINV (Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. FLKR is passively managed, while MINV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLKR returned 51.14%/yr vs 34.15%/yr for MINV. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLKR charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for MINV.

Performance

FLKR vs. MINV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR) and Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLKR achieves a 114.41% return, which is significantly higher than MINV's 58.70% return.

FLKR

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: 29.00%
• YTD: 114.41%
• 6M: 130.14%
• 1Y: 238.40%
• 3Y*: 51.14%
• 5Y*: 19.48%
• 10Y*: —

MINV

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: 14.54%
• YTD: 58.70%
• 6M: 60.02%
• 1Y: 93.90%
• 3Y*: 34.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLKR vs. MINV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLKR Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF	114.41%	91.91%	-18.84%	19.16%	1.04%
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	58.70%	30.85%	17.32%	-2.66%	-3.11%

Correlation

The correlation between FLKR and MINV is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2022	0.69

The correlation between FLKR and MINV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLKR vs. MINV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLKR	MINV
Technology	64.3%	62.8%
Industrials	12.8%	17.8%
Financial Services	7.6%	1.2%
Consumer Cyclical	6.0%	3.5%
Basic Materials	2.6%	0.8%
Healthcare	2.5%	3.0%
Communication Services	1.6%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.5%	-
Energy	0.4%	1.5%
Utilities	0.3%	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

FLKR vs. MINV — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLKR

FLKR Risk / Return Rank: 96
FLKR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
FLKR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
FLKR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
FLKR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FLKR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

MINV

MINV Risk / Return Rank: 93
MINV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
MINV Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
MINV Omega Ratio Rank: 92
MINV Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
MINV Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

FLKR vs. MINV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR) and Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV). 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.

	FLKR	MINV	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	5.83	3.76	+2.07
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.23	4.54	+0.68
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.73	1.62	+0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.42	8.68	+1.74
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	38.67	23.03	+15.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLKR vs. MINV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLKR Sharpe Ratio is 5.83, which is higher than the MINV Sharpe Ratio of 3.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLKR and MINV, 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

	FLKR	MINV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.83	3.76	+2.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.69	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.55	1.01	-0.46

Drawdowns

FLKR vs. MINV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLKR drawdown since its inception was -50.06%, which is greater than MINV's maximum drawdown of -23.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLKR and MINV.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLKR	MINV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.06%	-23.49%	-26.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.03%	-10.88%	-12.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.39%	-19.82%	-6.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-49.51%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.77%	-1.89%	+0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.07%	-8.07%	-14.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.20%	4.09%	+2.11%

Volatility

FLKR vs. MINV - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR) has a higher volatility of 20.21% compared to Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) at 10.63%. This indicates that FLKR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MINV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLKR	MINV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	20.21%	10.63%	+9.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	36.52%	21.20%	+15.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	41.18%	25.11%	+16.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.19%	23.74%	+4.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.56%	23.74%	+3.82%

FLKR vs. MINV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLKR has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than MINV's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLKR vs. MINV - Dividend Comparison

FLKR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.80%, more than MINV's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLKR Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF	1.80%	3.87%	7.08%	2.28%	3.13%	2.12%	0.99%	2.09%	1.86%	1.02%
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	0.95%	1.51%	0.25%	1.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLKR and MINV in my portfolio?

FLKR and MINV have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLKR or MINV?

FLKR has higher volatility (20.21%) compared to MINV (10.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLKR dropped -50.06% vs MINV's -23.49%.

Which ETF is better, FLKR or MINV?

On 3-year performance, FLKR leads with 51.14% vs 34.15% for MINV. On fees, FLKR is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, MINV has been the lower-risk option at 10.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLKR or MINV?

Over the 3-year period, FLKR has performed better with a 51.14% return vs 34.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLKR or MINV?

FLKR is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MINV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLKR or MINV?

FLKR has the higher dividend yield at 1.80%, compared with 0.95% for MINV.

What is the main difference between FLKR and MINV?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for FLKR and 0.79% for MINV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLKR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.83 vs 3.76), 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.