FLQA.L vs. EEDM.L
FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and EEDM.L (iShares MSCI EM CTB Enhanced ESG UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - FLQA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return, while EEDM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM ESG Enhanced CTB Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLQA.L returned 12.23%/yr vs 5.67%/yr for EEDM.L. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLQA.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for EEDM.L.
Performance
FLQA.L vs. EEDM.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FLQA.L achieves a 30.17% return, which is significantly higher than EEDM.L's 15.41% return.
FLQA.L
- 1D
- -1.86%
- 1M
- -11.56%
- 6M
- 22.63%
- YTD
- 30.17%
- 1Y
- 48.05%
- 3Y*
- 24.43%
- 5Y*
- 12.23%
- 10Y*
- —
EEDM.L
- 1D
- -1.89%
- 1M
- -9.56%
- 6M
- 10.23%
- YTD
- 15.41%
- 1Y
- 29.68%
- 3Y*
- 18.64%
- 5Y*
- 5.67%
- 10Y*
- —
FLQA.L vs. EEDM.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 30.17% | 29.84% | 7.76% | 12.02% | -12.93% | 4.57% | 6.71% | 4.17% |
EEDM.L iShares MSCI EM CTB Enhanced ESG UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 15.41% | 35.48% | 6.70% | 8.18% | -21.69% | -2.85% | 19.76% | 7.14% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLQA.L and EEDM.L is 0.94, 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 | 0.94 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.89 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2019 | 0.89 |
The correlation between FLQA.L and EEDM.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
FLQA.L vs. EEDM.L — Risk / Return Rank
FLQA.L
EEDM.L
FLQA.L vs. EEDM.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) and iShares MSCI EM CTB Enhanced ESG UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (EEDM.L). 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.
| FLQA.L | EEDM.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.55 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.60 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.34 | 1.25 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.37 | 2.20 | +1.17 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.76 | 6.95 | +3.81 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FLQA.L vs. EEDM.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLQA.L drawdown since its inception was -29.21%, smaller than the maximum EEDM.L drawdown of -40.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLQA.L and EEDM.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLQA.L | EEDM.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -29.21% | -40.90% | +11.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.19% | -13.41% | -0.78% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.19% | -16.97% | -5.22% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.38% | -36.39% | +11.01% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -14.19% | -11.26% | -2.93% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.22% | -16.32% | +9.10% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.45% | 4.26% | +0.19% |
Volatility
FLQA.L vs. EEDM.L - Volatility Comparison
Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a higher volatility of 10.89% compared to iShares MSCI EM CTB Enhanced ESG UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (EEDM.L) at 9.16%. This indicates that FLQA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EEDM.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLQA.L | EEDM.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.89% | 9.16% | +1.73% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 23.07% | 20.04% | +3.03% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.18% | 21.98% | +3.20% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.75% | 19.47% | -1.72% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.53% | 20.80% | -2.27% |
FLQA.L vs. EEDM.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLQA.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than EEDM.L's 0.18% 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
FLQA.L vs. EEDM.L - Dividend Comparison
FLQA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EEDM.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.69%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EEDM.L iShares MSCI EM CTB Enhanced ESG UCITS ETF USD (Dist) | 1.69% | 1.89% | 2.37% | 2.37% | 2.59% | 1.97% | 1.54% | 0.05% |
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.94, FLQA.L and EEDM.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, FLQA.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for EEDM.L.
FLQA.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while EEDM.L is Emerging Markets Equities. FLQA.L tracks Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return, while EEDM.L tracks MSCI EM ESG Enhanced CTB Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for FLQA.L and 0.18% for EEDM.L.
Find the right allocation for FLQA.L and EEDM.L
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