FLTW vs. LIT

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

FLTW (Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF) and LIT (Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLTW is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index, while LIT is a Commodity Producers Equities fund tracking the Solactive Global Lithium Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLTW returned 20.89%/yr vs 4.01%/yr for LIT. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLTW charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LIT.

Performance

FLTW vs. LIT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) and Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLTW achieves a 65.68% return, which is significantly higher than LIT's 27.00% return.

FLTW

• 1D: 0.59%
• 1M: 9.23%
• YTD: 65.68%
• 6M: 71.97%
• 1Y: 100.51%
• 3Y*: 39.63%
• 5Y*: 20.89%
• 10Y*: —

LIT

• 1D: 2.02%
• 1M: -8.05%
• YTD: 27.00%
• 6M: 29.31%
• 1Y: 120.44%
• 3Y*: 9.00%
• 5Y*: 4.01%
• 10Y*: 14.53%

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

FLTW vs. LIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	65.68%	32.00%	16.68%	30.05%	-27.51%	29.46%	29.77%	31.23%	-9.32%	-1.28%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	27.00%	60.05%	-19.19%	-12.18%	-29.91%	36.74%	127.88%	3.27%	-28.63%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between FLTW and LIT is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.55

The correlation between FLTW and LIT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.50 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLTW vs. LIT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLTW	LIT
Technology	75.6%	11.5%
Financial Services	12.6%	-
Industrials	4.0%	26.0%
Basic Materials	2.9%	55.4%
Consumer Cyclical	1.7%	7.0%
Communication Services	1.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.9%	-
Healthcare	0.6%	-
Energy	0.1%	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FLTW vs. LIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLTW

FLTW Risk / Return Rank: 95
FLTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
FLTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
FLTW Omega Ratio Rank: 93
FLTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FLTW Martin Ratio Rank: 95

LIT

LIT Risk / Return Rank: 94
LIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
LIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
LIT Omega Ratio Rank: 91
LIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
LIT Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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. LIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) and Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT). 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.

	FLTW	LIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.62	3.57	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.02	3.94	+0.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.52	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.29	7.36	+1.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	27.95	27.27	+0.68

FLTW vs. LIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLTW Sharpe Ratio is 3.62, which is comparable to the LIT Sharpe Ratio of 3.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLTW and LIT, 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

FLTW vs. LIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLTW drawdown since its inception was -38.00%, smaller than the maximum LIT drawdown of -65.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLTW and LIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLTW	LIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.00%	-65.91%	+27.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-16.46%	+5.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.45%	-53.01%	+26.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.00%	-65.91%	+27.91%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-65.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.47%	-11.21%	+6.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.42%	-33.59%	+25.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.61%	4.45%	-0.84%

Volatility

FLTW vs. LIT - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) has a higher volatility of 15.27% compared to Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF (LIT) at 11.56%. This indicates that FLTW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLTW	LIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.27%	11.56%	+3.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.85%	23.80%	+0.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.98%	33.94%	-5.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.90%	32.04%	-9.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.03%	30.77%	-8.74%

FLTW vs. LIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLTW has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than LIT's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLTW vs. LIT - Dividend Comparison

FLTW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.51%, more than LIT's 0.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	1.51%	2.51%	1.89%	2.85%	3.16%	2.31%	2.14%	3.00%	1.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LIT Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF	0.38%	0.49%	0.93%	1.11%	0.99%	0.22%	0.40%	1.85%	2.52%	3.26%	2.15%	0.24%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLTW and LIT in my portfolio?

FLTW and LIT have a correlation of 0.51, 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 LIT?

FLTW has higher volatility (15.27%) compared to LIT (11.56%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLTW dropped -38.00% vs LIT's -65.91%.

Which ETF is better, FLTW or LIT?

On 5-year performance, FLTW leads with 20.89% vs 4.01% for LIT. On fees, FLTW is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, LIT has been the lower-risk option at 11.56%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLTW or LIT?

Over the 5-year period, FLTW has performed better with a 20.89% return vs 4.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLTW or LIT?

FLTW is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LIT.

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

FLTW has the higher dividend yield at 1.51%, compared with 0.38% for LIT.

What is the main difference between FLTW and LIT?

FLTW is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while LIT is Commodity Producers Equities. FLTW tracks FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index, while LIT tracks Solactive Global Lithium Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLTW and 0.75% for LIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.62 vs 3.57), 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.