FLTW vs. MINV

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

FLTW (Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF) and MINV (Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. FLTW is passively managed, while MINV is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLTW returned 41.55%/yr vs 35.03%/yr for MINV. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLTW charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for MINV.

Performance

FLTW vs. MINV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) and Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLTW achieves a 68.03% return, which is significantly higher than MINV's 59.64% return.

FLTW

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: 1.95%
• YTD: 68.03%
• 6M: 70.67%
• 1Y: 100.47%
• 3Y*: 41.55%
• 5Y*: 21.23%
• 10Y*: —

MINV

• 1D: 1.72%
• 1M: 0.70%
• YTD: 59.64%
• 6M: 60.18%
• 1Y: 84.16%
• 3Y*: 35.03%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLTW vs. MINV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	68.03%	32.00%	16.68%	30.05%	-2.59%
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	59.64%	30.85%	17.32%	-2.66%	-2.87%

Correlation

The correlation between FLTW and MINV is 0.80, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2022	0.72

The correlation between FLTW and MINV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLTW vs. MINV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLTW	MINV
Technology	78.7%	67.2%
Financial Services	11.2%	1.4%
Industrials	3.3%	19.2%
Basic Materials	2.5%	0.8%
Consumer Cyclical	1.5%	3.7%
Communication Services	1.4%	2.3%
Consumer Defensive	0.7%	-
Healthcare	0.6%	4.6%
Energy	0.1%	1.7%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

FLTW vs. MINV — 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

MINV

MINV Risk / Return Rank: 92
MINV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
MINV Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
MINV Omega Ratio Rank: 90
MINV Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
MINV Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. MINV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) and Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV). 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	MINV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.49	2.92	+0.57
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.84	3.43	+0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.51	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.29	7.76	+1.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	27.41	19.30	+8.11

FLTW vs. MINV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLTW Sharpe Ratio is 3.49, which is comparable to the MINV Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLTW and MINV, 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. MINV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLTW drawdown since its inception was -38.00%, which is greater than MINV's maximum drawdown of -23.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLTW and MINV.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLTW	MINV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.00%	-23.49%	-14.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-10.91%	+0.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.45%	-19.82%	-6.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.00%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.50%	-5.14%	-1.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.40%	-8.03%	-0.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.68%	4.38%	-0.70%

Volatility

FLTW vs. MINV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) is 14.85%, while Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) has a volatility of 15.96%. This indicates that FLTW experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MINV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLTW	MINV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.85%	15.96%	-1.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.08%	25.92%	-0.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.96%	28.96%	0.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.23%	24.77%	-1.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.19%	24.77%	-2.58%

FLTW vs. MINV - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLTW has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than MINV's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLTW vs. MINV - Dividend Comparison

FLTW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.42%, more than MINV's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	1.42%	2.51%	1.89%	2.85%	3.16%	2.31%	2.14%	3.00%	1.06%
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	0.95%	1.51%	0.25%	1.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLTW and MINV in my portfolio?

FLTW and MINV have a correlation of 0.80, 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 MINV?

MINV has higher volatility (15.96%) compared to FLTW (14.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLTW dropped -38.00% vs MINV's -23.49%.

Which ETF is better, FLTW or MINV?

On 3-year performance, FLTW leads with 41.55% vs 35.03% for MINV. On fees, FLTW is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLTW has been the lower-risk option at 14.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLTW or MINV?

Over the 3-year period, FLTW has performed better with a 41.55% return vs 35.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLTW or MINV?

FLTW is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MINV.

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

FLTW has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.95% for MINV.

What is the main difference between FLTW and MINV?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Matthews. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLTW and 0.79% for MINV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.49 vs 2.92), 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.