FLTW vs. IPAC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLTW (Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF) and IPAC (iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - FLTW tracks the FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index while IPAC tracks the MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLTW returned 21.84%/yr vs 7.65%/yr for IPAC. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLTW charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for IPAC.

Performance

FLTW vs. IPAC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) and iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLTW achieves a 73.16% return, which is significantly higher than IPAC's 13.73% return.

FLTW

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 20.90%
• YTD: 73.16%
• 6M: 78.07%
• 1Y: 122.77%
• 3Y*: 43.09%
• 5Y*: 21.84%
• 10Y*: —

IPAC

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 4.62%
• YTD: 13.73%
• 6M: 15.39%
• 1Y: 28.03%
• 3Y*: 17.03%
• 5Y*: 7.65%
• 10Y*: 9.13%

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

FLTW vs. IPAC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	73.16%	32.00%	16.68%	30.05%	-27.51%	29.46%	29.77%	31.23%	-9.32%	-1.25%
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	13.73%	25.16%	6.18%	14.51%	-13.68%	3.09%	12.39%	19.44%	-12.78%	2.76%

Correlation

The correlation between FLTW and IPAC is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.62
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2017	0.63

The correlation between FLTW and IPAC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.62 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLTW vs. IPAC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLTW	IPAC
Technology	75.6%	12.9%
Financial Services	12.6%	22.9%
Industrials	4.0%	21.3%
Basic Materials	2.9%	8.2%
Consumer Cyclical	1.7%	10.8%
Communication Services	1.6%	5.7%
Consumer Defensive	0.9%	4.0%
Healthcare	0.6%	5.3%
Energy	0.1%	1.8%
Real Estate	-	5.5%
Utilities	-	1.9%

Return for Risk

FLTW vs. IPAC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLTW

FLTW Risk / Return Rank: 96
FLTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
FLTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
FLTW Omega Ratio Rank: 95
FLTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FLTW Martin Ratio Rank: 96

IPAC

IPAC Risk / Return Rank: 50
IPAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
IPAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
IPAC Omega Ratio Rank: 50
IPAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
IPAC Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

FLTW vs. IPAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) and iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC). 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.

	FLTW	IPAC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.75	1.72	+3.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.21	2.45	+2.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.73	1.32	+0.41
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	11.36	2.45	+8.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	35.77	8.83	+26.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLTW vs. IPAC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLTW Sharpe Ratio is 4.75, which is higher than the IPAC Sharpe Ratio of 1.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLTW and IPAC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FLTW	IPAC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.75	1.72	+3.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98	0.46	+0.52
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.55	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.95	0.45	+0.51

Drawdowns

FLTW vs. IPAC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLTW drawdown since its inception was -38.00%, which is greater than IPAC's maximum drawdown of -30.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLTW and IPAC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLTW	IPAC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.00%	-30.99%	-7.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-11.49%	+0.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.45%	-15.45%	-11.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.00%	-29.64%	-8.36%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-30.99%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.16%	-0.56%	+0.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.43%	-7.48%	-0.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.45%	3.18%	+0.27%

Volatility

FLTW vs. IPAC - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) has a higher volatility of 11.77% compared to iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) at 4.00%. This indicates that FLTW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IPAC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLTW	IPAC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.77%	4.00%	+7.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.29%	13.09%	+8.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.00%	16.41%	+9.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.44%	16.62%	+5.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.77%	16.58%	+5.19%

FLTW vs. IPAC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLTW has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than IPAC's 0.09% 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

FLTW vs. IPAC - Dividend Comparison

FLTW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, less than IPAC's 3.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	1.45%	2.51%	1.89%	2.85%	3.16%	2.31%	2.14%	3.00%	1.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	3.80%	4.32%	3.43%	3.16%	2.76%	4.03%	1.68%	3.37%	2.95%	2.98%	2.66%	2.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLTW and IPAC in my portfolio?

FLTW and IPAC have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLTW or IPAC?

FLTW has higher volatility (11.77%) compared to IPAC (4.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLTW dropped -38.00% vs IPAC's -30.99%.

Which ETF is better, FLTW or IPAC?

On 5-year performance, FLTW leads with 21.84% vs 7.65% for IPAC. On fees, IPAC is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, IPAC has been the lower-risk option at 4.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLTW or IPAC?

Over the 5-year period, FLTW has performed better with a 21.84% return vs 7.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLTW or IPAC?

IPAC is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for FLTW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLTW or IPAC?

IPAC has the higher dividend yield at 3.80%, compared with 1.45% for FLTW.

What is the main difference between FLTW and IPAC?

FLTW tracks FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index, while IPAC tracks MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLTW and 0.09% for IPAC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.75 vs 1.72), 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.