FLRG.L vs. FLQA.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

FLRG.L (Franklin Sustainable Euro Green Bond UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)) and FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLRG.L is a Global Bonds fund tracking the Franklin Sustainable Euro Green Bond UCITS ETF EUR (Acc), while FLQA.L is a China Equities fund tracking the Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLRG.L returned -2.18%/yr vs 13.68%/yr for FLQA.L. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLRG.L charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLQA.L.

Performance

FLRG.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a €10,000 investment in Franklin Sustainable Euro Green Bond UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) (FLRG.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLRG.L achieves a 0.63% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 38.10% return.

FLRG.L

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.46%
• 6M: 0.08%
• YTD: 0.63%
• 1Y: 1.35%
• 3Y*: 3.27%
• 5Y*: -2.18%
• 10Y*: —

FLQA.L

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -6.57%
• 6M: 30.77%
• YTD: 38.10%
• 1Y: 56.69%
• 3Y*: 25.02%
• 5Y*: 13.68%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FLRG.L Franklin Sustainable Euro Green Bond UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)	0.63%	0.59%	2.78%	7.71%	-18.99%	-3.01%	5.46%	3.44%
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF	38.10%	14.43%	14.87%	8.66%	-7.54%	12.39%	-2.09%	0.37%

Correlation

The correlation between FLRG.L and FLQA.L is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.19
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2019	0.06

Over the past year, FLRG.L and FLQA.L have become more correlated (0.33) than their long-term average of 0.06, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

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

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

FLRG.L

FLRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 16
FLRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
FLRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
FLRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 14
FLRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
FLRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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

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.

FLRG.L vs. FLQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Sustainable Euro Green Bond UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) (FLRG.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.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.

	FLRG.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.40	2.32	-1.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.59	2.98	-2.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.41	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.58	4.77	-4.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.62	14.26	-12.64

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

The current FLRG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.40, which is lower than the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLRG.L and FLQA.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

FLRG.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLRG.L drawdown since its inception was -23.17%, smaller than the maximum FLQA.L drawdown of -26.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLRG.L and FLQA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLRG.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.17%	-26.80%	+3.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.48%	-11.87%	+9.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.41%	-20.75%	+17.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.63%	-20.75%	-1.88%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.19%	-11.45%	-0.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.42%	-5.31%	-5.11%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.89%	3.97%	-3.08%

Volatility

FLRG.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin Sustainable Euro Green Bond UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) (FLRG.L) is 1.02%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 10.93%. This indicates that FLRG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLRG.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.02%	10.93%	-9.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.98%	21.86%	-18.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.61%	24.34%	-20.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.37%	16.86%	-11.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.99%	18.08%	-13.09%

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

FLRG.L has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FLRG.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

FLRG.L and FLQA.L have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for FLRG.L.

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

FLRG.L is categorized as Global Bonds, while FLQA.L is China Equities. FLRG.L tracks Franklin Sustainable Euro Green Bond UCITS ETF EUR (Acc), while FLQA.L tracks Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for FLRG.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.