FLQA.L vs. FLXC.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF) and FLXC.L (Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - FLQA.L tracks the Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF while FLXC.L tracks the MSCI China NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLQA.L returned 12.63%/yr vs -4.32%/yr for FLXC.L. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLQA.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLXC.L.

Performance

FLQA.L vs. FLXC.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L) and Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLQA.L achieves a 32.52% return, which is significantly higher than FLXC.L's -8.35% return.

FLQA.L

• 1D: -1.74%
• 1M: -9.13%
• 6M: 26.58%
• YTD: 32.52%
• 1Y: 52.26%
• 3Y*: 25.15%
• 5Y*: 12.63%
• 10Y*: —

FLXC.L

• 1D: 1.78%
• 1M: -1.33%
• 6M: -12.83%
• YTD: -8.35%
• 1Y: 0.10%
• 3Y*: 8.62%
• 5Y*: -4.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

FLQA.L vs. FLXC.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF	32.52%	29.84%	7.76%	12.02%	-12.93%	4.57%	6.71%	6.31%
FLXC.L Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF	-8.35%	32.15%	19.39%	-12.76%	-23.03%	-20.35%	31.22%	17.62%

Correlation

The correlation between FLQA.L and FLXC.L is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.52
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2019	0.67

Over the past year, the correlation between FLQA.L and FLXC.L has dropped to 0.46 - well below their long-term average of 0.67, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

FLQA.L vs. FLXC.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLQA.L

FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 79
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

FLXC.L

FLXC.L Risk / Return Rank: 9
FLXC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
FLXC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
FLXC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9
FLXC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
FLXC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9

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.

FLQA.L vs. FLXC.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 (FLQA.L) and Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.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	FLXC.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	0.01	+2.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.66	0.14	+2.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.02	+0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.75	0.00	+3.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.86	0.01	+11.85

FLQA.L vs. FLXC.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is higher than the FLXC.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLQA.L and FLXC.L, 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

FLQA.L vs. FLXC.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLQA.L drawdown since its inception was -29.21%, smaller than the maximum FLXC.L drawdown of -61.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLQA.L and FLXC.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLQA.L	FLXC.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.21%	-61.74%	+32.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.77%	-21.43%	+7.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.19%	-25.43%	+3.24%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.38%	-52.70%	+27.32%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.64%	-35.12%	+22.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.22%	-31.72%	+24.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.36%	9.74%	-5.38%

Volatility

FLQA.L vs. FLXC.L - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L) has a higher volatility of 11.18% compared to Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L) at 5.29%. This indicates that FLQA.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLXC.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLQA.L	FLXC.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.18%	5.29%	+5.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.99%	13.77%	+9.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.11%	19.09%	+6.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.74%	28.40%	-10.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.52%	27.19%	-8.67%

FLQA.L vs. FLXC.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLQA.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than FLXC.L's 0.19% 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. FLXC.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither FLQA.L nor FLXC.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLQA.L and FLXC.L in my portfolio?

FLQA.L and FLXC.L have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FLQA.L or FLXC.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLQA.L or FLXC.L?

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for FLXC.L.

What is the main difference between FLQA.L and FLXC.L?

FLQA.L tracks Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF, while FLXC.L tracks MSCI China NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Franklin and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for FLQA.L and 0.19% for FLXC.L.