FLSW vs. FLGB

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLSW (Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF) and FLGB (Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF) are both Europe Equities funds from Franklin Templeton - FLSW tracks the FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index while FLGB tracks the FTSE UK RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLSW returned 7.06%/yr vs 10.74%/yr for FLGB. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.09% expense ratio.

Performance

FLSW vs. FLGB - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with FLSW having a 4.52% return and FLGB slightly higher at 4.59%.

FLSW

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

FLGB

• 1D: -0.45%
• 1M: -1.81%
• YTD: 4.59%
• 6M: 4.84%
• 1Y: 18.93%
• 3Y*: 17.39%
• 5Y*: 10.74%
• 10Y*: —

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

FLSW vs. FLGB - 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%
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	4.59%	33.73%	8.77%	14.33%	-6.00%	17.14%	-9.47%	23.23%	-12.40%

Correlation

The correlation between FLSW and FLGB is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 8, 2018	0.72

The correlation between FLSW and FLGB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLSW vs. FLGB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLSW	FLGB
Healthcare	37.3%	12.9%
Financial Services	17.6%	27.1%
Industrials	14.1%	13.3%
Consumer Defensive	13.7%	13.9%
Basic Materials	7.8%	8.8%
Consumer Cyclical	5.7%	4.8%
Technology	1.3%	0.6%
Real Estate	1.2%	0.8%
Communication Services	1.2%	2.5%
Utilities	0.2%	4.7%
Energy	-	10.2%

Return for Risk

FLSW vs. FLGB — 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

FLGB

FLGB Risk / Return Rank: 39
FLGB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FLGB Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FLGB Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FLGB Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
FLGB Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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. FLGB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW) and Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB). 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	FLGB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	1.32	-0.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.71	1.91	-0.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.24	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.32	1.85	-0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.20	6.43	-2.23

FLSW vs. FLGB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLSW Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is comparable to the FLGB Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLSW and FLGB, 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. FLGB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLSW drawdown since its inception was -28.16%, smaller than the maximum FLGB drawdown of -42.61%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLSW and FLGB.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLSW	FLGB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.16%	-42.61%	+14.45%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.38%	-10.26%	-3.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.38%	-13.13%	-0.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.16%	-25.90%	-2.26%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.81%	-5.18%	+1.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-6.67%	+0.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.21%	2.95%	+1.26%

Volatility

FLSW vs. FLGB - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE Switzerland ETF (FLSW) has a higher volatility of 4.57% compared to Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF (FLGB) at 4.15%. This indicates that FLSW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLGB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLSW	FLGB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.57%	4.15%	+0.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.43%	12.36%	+0.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.65%	14.49%	+1.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.76%	16.63%	-0.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.88%	18.95%	-2.07%

FLSW vs. FLGB - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both FLSW and FLGB have an expense ratio of 0.09%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FLSW vs. FLGB - Dividend Comparison

FLSW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%, less than FLGB's 1.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLGB Franklin FTSE United Kingdom ETF	1.68%	3.50%	4.42%	3.95%	4.23%	2.93%	2.67%	4.30%	3.92%	0.43%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLSW and FLGB in my portfolio?

FLSW and FLGB have a correlation of 0.76, 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 FLGB?

FLSW has higher volatility (4.57%) compared to FLGB (4.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLSW dropped -28.16% vs FLGB's -42.61%.

Which ETF is better, FLSW or FLGB?

On 5-year performance, FLGB leads with 10.74% vs 7.06% for FLSW. Both ETFs have the same 0.09% expense ratio. On volatility, FLGB has been the lower-risk option at 4.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLSW or FLGB?

Over the 5-year period, FLGB has performed better with a 10.74% 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 FLGB?

FLSW and FLGB have the same expense ratio: 0.09% per year.

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

FLGB has the higher dividend yield at 1.68%, compared with 0.12% for FLSW.

What is the main difference between FLSW and FLGB?

FLSW tracks FTSE Switzerland RIC Capped Index, while FLGB tracks FTSE UK RIC Capped Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLGB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.32 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.