FLSW vs. EWP

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLSW (Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF) and EWP (iShares MSCI Spain ETF) are both Europe Equities funds - FLSW tracks the FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index while EWP tracks the MSCI Spain Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLSW returned 7.06%/yr vs 18.75%/yr for EWP. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLSW charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for EWP.

Performance

FLSW vs. EWP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW) and iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLSW achieves a 4.52% return, which is significantly lower than EWP's 11.25% return.

FLSW

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: -0.04%
• YTD: 4.52%
• 6M: 3.79%
• 1Y: 17.63%
• 3Y*: 12.98%
• 5Y*: 7.06%
• 10Y*: —

EWP

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: 6.13%
• YTD: 11.25%
• 6M: 11.48%
• 1Y: 41.28%
• 3Y*: 33.03%
• 5Y*: 18.75%
• 10Y*: 13.42%

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

FLSW vs. EWP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FLSW Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF	4.52%	32.92%	-1.77%	16.79%	-18.14%	20.82%	13.25%	31.66%	-7.85%
EWP iShares MSCI Spain ETF	11.25%	78.03%	5.70%	30.26%	-5.18%	0.25%	-3.94%	11.93%	-17.14%

Correlation

The correlation between FLSW and EWP is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.66
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2018	0.63

The correlation between FLSW and EWP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLSW vs. EWP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLSW	EWP
Healthcare	37.3%	1.3%
Financial Services	17.6%	42.4%
Industrials	14.1%	16.3%
Consumer Defensive	13.7%	-
Basic Materials	7.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	4.6%
Technology	1.3%	5.6%
Real Estate	1.2%	2.8%
Communication Services	1.2%	2.8%
Utilities	0.2%	21.4%
Energy	-	4.1%

Return for Risk

FLSW vs. EWP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLSW

FLSW Risk / Return Rank: 31
FLSW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
FLSW Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
FLSW Omega Ratio Rank: 31
FLSW Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
FLSW Martin Ratio Rank: 31

EWP

EWP Risk / Return Rank: 71
EWP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
EWP Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EWP Omega Ratio Rank: 67
EWP Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
EWP Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

FLSW vs. EWP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW) and iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP). 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.

	FLSW	EWP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	2.21	-1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	2.94	-1.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.38	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.32	3.64	-2.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.20	12.92	-8.72

FLSW vs. EWP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLSW Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is lower than the EWP Sharpe Ratio of 2.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLSW and EWP, 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

FLSW vs. EWP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLSW drawdown since its inception was -28.16%, smaller than the maximum EWP drawdown of -61.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLSW and EWP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLSW	EWP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.16%	-61.19%	+33.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.38%	-11.38%	-2.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.38%	-12.19%	-1.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.16%	-31.63%	+3.47%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.81%	-0.72%	-3.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-21.40%	+15.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.21%	3.20%	+1.01%

Volatility

FLSW vs. EWP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW) is 4.57%, while iShares MSCI Spain ETF (EWP) has a volatility of 5.49%. This indicates that FLSW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EWP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLSW	EWP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.57%	5.49%	-0.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.43%	16.07%	-3.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.65%	18.81%	-3.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.76%	20.29%	-4.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.88%	21.56%	-4.68%

FLSW vs. EWP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLSW has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than EWP's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLSW vs. EWP - Dividend Comparison

FLSW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%, less than EWP's 2.82% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWP iShares MSCI Spain ETF	2.82%	2.27%	4.35%	2.70%	3.07%	3.29%	2.56%	3.72%	3.69%	2.72%	4.65%	3.85%
FLSW Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF	0.12%	2.12%	2.04%	2.36%	2.02%	1.86%	2.28%	1.15%	2.86%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLSW and EWP in my portfolio?

FLSW and EWP have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLSW or EWP?

EWP has higher volatility (5.49%) compared to FLSW (4.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLSW dropped -28.16% vs EWP's -61.19%.

Which ETF is better, FLSW or EWP?

On 5-year performance, EWP leads with 18.75% vs 7.06% for FLSW. On fees, FLSW is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLSW has been the lower-risk option at 4.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLSW or EWP?

Over the 5-year period, EWP has performed better with a 18.75% return vs 7.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLSW or EWP?

FLSW is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for EWP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLSW or EWP?

EWP has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 0.12% for FLSW.

What is the main difference between FLSW and EWP?

FLSW tracks FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index, while EWP tracks MSCI Spain Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for FLSW and 0.50% for EWP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.21 vs 1.14), 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.