FLSA vs. FLJH

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLSA (Franklin FTSE Saudi Arabia ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLSA is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the FTSE Saudi Arabia RIC Capped Index, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLSA returned 2.76%/yr vs 20.87%/yr for FLJH. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLSA charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

FLSA vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Saudi Arabia ETF (FLSA) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLSA achieves a 6.38% return, which is significantly lower than FLJH's 20.28% return.

FLSA

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 6.38%
• 6M: 5.27%
• 1Y: 6.30%
• 3Y*: 0.86%
• 5Y*: 2.76%
• 10Y*: —

FLJH

• 1D: -4.00%
• 1M: 2.70%
• YTD: 20.28%
• 6M: 20.23%
• 1Y: 46.99%
• 3Y*: 27.12%
• 5Y*: 20.87%
• 10Y*: —

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

FLSA vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FLSA Franklin FTSE Saudi Arabia ETF	6.38%	-7.15%	-0.29%	12.99%	-3.58%	35.72%	3.73%	9.46%	2.78%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	20.28%	25.26%	25.89%	36.02%	-2.75%	12.68%	10.65%	20.34%	-14.19%

Correlation

The correlation between FLSA and FLJH is 0.25, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.25
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.28
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2018	0.30

FLSA vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLSA	FLJH
Financial Services	40.5%	15.8%
Basic Materials	15.8%	4.4%
Energy	13.9%	0.9%
Communication Services	9.4%	8.0%
Utilities	4.7%	1.2%
Healthcare	3.5%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	3.5%	12.7%
Industrials	3.0%	25.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	4.0%
Real Estate	1.9%	3.0%
Technology	1.3%	19.4%

Return for Risk

FLSA vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLSA

FLSA Risk / Return Rank: 15
FLSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
FLSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
FLSA Omega Ratio Rank: 14
FLSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FLSA Martin Ratio Rank: 15

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 82
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 81
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

FLSA vs. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Saudi Arabia ETF (FLSA) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). 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.

	FLSA	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	2.49	-2.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.75	3.31	-2.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.46	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.56	4.37	-3.81
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.23	16.90	-15.66

FLSA vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLSA Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is lower than the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLSA and FLJH, 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

FLSA vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLSA drawdown since its inception was -38.31%, which is greater than FLJH's maximum drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLSA and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLSA	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.31%	-31.51%	-6.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.30%	-10.80%	-0.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.95%	-20.39%	+5.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.25%	-20.39%	-6.86%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.78%	-4.00%	-10.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.21%	-5.29%	-6.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.12%	2.79%	+2.33%

Volatility

FLSA vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE Saudi Arabia ETF (FLSA) is 4.87%, while Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) has a volatility of 7.15%. This indicates that FLSA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLSA	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.87%	7.15%	-2.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.46%	14.83%	-2.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.36%	18.98%	-2.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.80%	18.71%	-2.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.39%	19.89%	-0.50%

FLSA vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLSA has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than FLJH's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLSA vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

FLSA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than FLJH's 1.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	1.86%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%
FLSA Franklin FTSE Saudi Arabia ETF	1.22%	4.01%	3.01%	3.09%	1.90%	1.95%	2.16%	3.18%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLSA and FLJH in my portfolio?

FLSA and FLJH have a correlation of 0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLSA or FLJH?

FLJH has higher volatility (7.15%) compared to FLSA (4.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLSA dropped -38.31% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, FLSA or FLJH?

On 5-year performance, FLJH leads with 20.87% vs 2.76% for FLSA. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLSA has been the lower-risk option at 4.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLSA or FLJH?

Over the 5-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 20.87% return vs 2.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLSA or FLJH?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for FLSA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLSA or FLJH?

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 1.86%, compared with 1.22% for FLSA.

What is the main difference between FLSA and FLJH?

FLSA is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while FLJH is Japan Equities. FLSA tracks FTSE Saudi Arabia RIC Capped Index, while FLJH tracks FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FLSA and 0.09% for FLJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 vs 0.39), 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.