FLQA.L vs. XMTW.L

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and XMTW.L (Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C) 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 XMTW.L is a Taiwan Equities fund tracking the MSCI Taiwan NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLQA.L returned 12.23%/yr vs 19.11%/yr for XMTW.L. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLQA.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for XMTW.L.

Performance

FLQA.L vs. XMTW.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 USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C (XMTW.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

FLQA.L is traded in USD, while XMTW.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the XMTW.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLQA.L achieves a 30.17% return, which is significantly lower than XMTW.L's 51.58% 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*: —

XMTW.L

• 1D: -3.94%
• 1M: -9.90%
• 6M: 42.77%
• YTD: 51.58%
• 1Y: 74.32%
• 3Y*: 38.23%
• 5Y*: 19.11%
• 10Y*: 20.20%

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
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%	9.75%	-5.84%
XMTW.L Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C	51.58%	33.34%	23.89%	28.08%	-29.55%	27.79%	36.46%	35.08%	-12.46%

Correlation

The correlation between FLQA.L and XMTW.L is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2018	0.77

The correlation between FLQA.L and XMTW.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FLQA.L vs. XMTW.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: 78
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 77
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 78

XMTW.L

XMTW.L Risk / Return Rank: 92
XMTW.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
XMTW.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
XMTW.L Omega Ratio Rank: 92
XMTW.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
XMTW.L Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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. XMTW.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 Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C (XMTW.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	XMTW.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.90	2.69	-0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.49	3.27	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.45	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.37	5.08	-1.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.76	16.97	-6.22

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

The current FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.90, which is comparable to the XMTW.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLQA.L and XMTW.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. XMTW.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLQA.L drawdown since its inception was -29.21%, smaller than the maximum XMTW.L drawdown of -99.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLQA.L and XMTW.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLQA.L	XMTW.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.21%	-99.34%	+70.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.19%	-14.56%	+0.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.19%	-27.72%	+5.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.38%	-41.17%	+15.79%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.17%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.19%	-14.56%	+0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.22%	-33.02%	+25.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.45%	4.36%	+0.09%

Volatility

FLQA.L vs. XMTW.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) is 10.89%, while Xtrackers MSCI Taiwan UCITS ETF 1C (XMTW.L) has a volatility of 12.29%. This indicates that FLQA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XMTW.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLQA.L	XMTW.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.89%	12.29%	-1.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.07%	24.10%	-1.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.18%	27.55%	-2.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.75%	26.93%	-9.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.53%	23.57%	-5.04%

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

FLQA.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than XMTW.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLQA.L vs. XMTW.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

FLQA.L and XMTW.L have a correlation of 0.84, 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 XMTW.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 XMTW.L?

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for XMTW.L.

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

FLQA.L is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while XMTW.L is Taiwan Equities. FLQA.L tracks Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return, while XMTW.L tracks MSCI Taiwan NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Franklin and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for FLQA.L and 0.65% for XMTW.L.