FLKR vs. VOLT

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

FLKR (Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF) and VOLT (Tema Electrification ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLKR is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the FTSE South Korea RIC Capped Index, while VOLT is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by Tema. FLKR is passively managed, while VOLT is actively managed. Over the past year, FLKR returned 191.57% vs 62.39% for VOLT. A 0.51 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLKR charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for VOLT.

Performance

FLKR vs. VOLT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLKR achieves a 98.10% return, which is significantly higher than VOLT's 36.32% return.

FLKR

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: 9.35%
• YTD: 98.10%
• 6M: 113.45%
• 1Y: 191.57%
• 3Y*: 45.52%
• 5Y*: 17.78%
• 10Y*: —

VOLT

• 1D: 1.28%
• 1M: -0.71%
• YTD: 36.32%
• 6M: 35.03%
• 1Y: 62.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLKR vs. VOLT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLKR Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF	98.10%	91.91%	-7.01%
VOLT Tema Electrification ETF	36.32%	25.92%	-8.98%

Correlation

The correlation between FLKR and VOLT is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2024	0.51

The correlation between FLKR and VOLT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.51 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLKR vs. VOLT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLKR	VOLT
Technology	62.9%	12.2%
Industrials	14.6%	46.7%
Financial Services	7.5%	0.5%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	3.4%
Healthcare	2.4%	-
Communication Services	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	1.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	-
Energy	0.7%	5.1%
Utilities	0.3%	31.8%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

FLKR vs. VOLT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLKR

FLKR Risk / Return Rank: 95
FLKR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
FLKR Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
FLKR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
FLKR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
FLKR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

VOLT

VOLT Risk / Return Rank: 91
VOLT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
VOLT Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
VOLT Omega Ratio Rank: 88
VOLT Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
VOLT Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. VOLT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR) and Tema Electrification ETF (VOLT). 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.

	FLKR	VOLT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.08	2.87	+1.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.94	3.62	+0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.47	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.11	6.35	+1.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	28.21	17.90	+10.30

FLKR vs. VOLT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLKR Sharpe Ratio is 4.08, which is higher than the VOLT Sharpe Ratio of 2.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLKR and VOLT, 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

FLKR vs. VOLT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLKR drawdown since its inception was -50.06%, which is greater than VOLT's maximum drawdown of -23.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLKR and VOLT.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLKR	VOLT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.06%	-23.40%	-26.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-23.03%	-9.59%	-13.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.39%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-49.51%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.25%	-4.76%	-4.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-22.03%	-5.19%	-16.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.61%	3.40%	+3.21%

Volatility

FLKR vs. VOLT - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR) has a higher volatility of 25.85% compared to Tema Electrification ETF (VOLT) at 9.23%. This indicates that FLKR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VOLT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLKR	VOLT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	25.85%	9.23%	+16.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	42.11%	18.19%	+23.92%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	45.82%	21.28%	+24.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.58%	24.40%	+5.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.37%	24.40%	+3.97%

FLKR vs. VOLT - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLKR has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than VOLT's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLKR vs. VOLT - Dividend Comparison

FLKR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.95%, more than VOLT's 0.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLKR Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF	1.95%	3.87%	7.08%	2.28%	3.13%	2.12%	0.99%	2.09%	1.86%	1.02%
VOLT Tema Electrification ETF	0.33%	0.46%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLKR and VOLT in my portfolio?

FLKR and VOLT have a correlation of 0.49, 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 VOLT?

FLKR has higher volatility (25.85%) compared to VOLT (9.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLKR dropped -50.06% vs VOLT's -23.40%.

Which ETF is better, FLKR or VOLT?

On 1-year performance, FLKR leads with 191.57% vs 62.39% for VOLT. On fees, FLKR is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, VOLT has been the lower-risk option at 9.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLKR or VOLT?

Over the 1-year period, FLKR has performed better with a 191.57% return vs 62.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLKR or VOLT?

FLKR is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for VOLT.

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

FLKR has the higher dividend yield at 1.95%, compared with 0.33% for VOLT.

What is the main difference between FLKR and VOLT?

FLKR is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while VOLT is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Tema. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for FLKR and 0.75% for VOLT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLKR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.08 vs 2.87), 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.