PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FPA vs. EWM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FPA vs. EWM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) and iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FPA achieves a 51.47% return, which is significantly higher than EWM's 2.45% return. Over the past 10 years, FPA has outperformed EWM with an annualized return of 11.25%, while EWM has yielded a comparatively lower 2.59% annualized return.


FPA

1D
-0.59%
1M
9.98%
YTD
51.47%
6M
51.19%
1Y
82.43%
3Y*
33.32%
5Y*
13.09%
10Y*
11.25%

EWM

1D
-2.37%
1M
-5.11%
YTD
2.45%
6M
6.54%
1Y
20.74%
3Y*
14.49%
5Y*
4.53%
10Y*
2.59%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FPA vs. EWM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FPA
First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund
51.47%43.16%3.95%9.97%-14.55%2.98%13.43%8.91%-21.91%35.81%
EWM
iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF
2.45%15.74%19.46%-3.61%-6.00%-7.40%3.12%-1.41%-6.28%24.25%

Correlation

The correlation between FPA and EWM is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.45

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.45

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.41

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2011

0.50

FPA vs. EWM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FPA
EWM

Industrials

37.1%
11.1%

Technology

16.1%

-

Financial Services

9.6%
46.6%

Consumer Cyclical

8.8%
1.1%

Real Estate

6.9%

-

Energy

6.7%
3.9%

Utilities

5.7%
10.8%

Basic Materials

4.9%
8.9%

Consumer Defensive

3.2%
7.3%

Communication Services

2.6%
6.6%

Healthcare

1.0%
3.8%

Industrials

FPA
37.1%
EWM
11.1%

Technology

FPA
16.1%
EWM

-

Financial Services

FPA
9.6%
EWM
46.6%

Consumer Cyclical

FPA
8.8%
EWM
1.1%

Real Estate

FPA
6.9%
EWM

-

Energy

FPA
6.7%
EWM
3.9%

Utilities

FPA
5.7%
EWM
10.8%

Basic Materials

FPA
4.9%
EWM
8.9%

Consumer Defensive

FPA
3.2%
EWM
7.3%

Communication Services

FPA
2.6%
EWM
6.6%

Healthcare

FPA
1.0%
EWM
3.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

FPA vs. EWM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FPA
FPA Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
FPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
FPA Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
FPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8989
Calmar Ratio Rank
FPA Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
Martin Ratio Rank

EWM
EWM Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
EWM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EWM Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
EWM Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
EWM Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
EWM Martin Ratio Rank: 4949
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FPA vs. EWM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) and iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM). 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.


FPAEWMDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

3.24

1.49

+1.75

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

3.94

2.09

+1.85

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.54

1.26

+0.27

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

5.39

2.65

+2.74

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

19.96

8.22

+11.74

FPA vs. EWM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FPA Sharpe Ratio is 3.24, which is higher than the EWM Sharpe Ratio of 1.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FPA and EWM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FPAEWMDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.24

1.49

+1.75

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.55

0.33

+0.22

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.50

0.16

+0.34

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.33

0.07

+0.26

Drawdowns

FPA vs. EWM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FPA drawdown since its inception was -52.91%, smaller than the maximum EWM drawdown of -89.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPA and EWM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FPAEWMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-52.91%

-89.19%

+36.28%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.37%

-7.86%

-7.51%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.66%

-21.31%

+0.65%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.21%

-22.76%

-12.45%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-52.91%

-43.81%

-9.10%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.12%

-9.46%

+5.34%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.49%

-31.82%

+18.33%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.14%

2.53%

+1.61%

Volatility

FPA vs. EWM - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) has a higher volatility of 12.96% compared to iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF (EWM) at 4.15%. This indicates that FPA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EWM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FPAEWMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

12.96%

4.15%

+8.81%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

21.92%

10.86%

+11.06%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

25.55%

13.99%

+11.56%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

23.98%

13.70%

+10.28%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.39%

16.29%

+6.10%

FPA vs. EWM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FPA has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than EWM's 0.49% expense ratio.


Dividends

FPA vs. EWM - Dividend Comparison

FPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.52%, more than EWM's 3.33% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EWM
iShares MSCI Malaysia ETF
3.33%3.41%3.32%3.47%3.00%6.48%1.89%2.91%3.84%5.58%5.97%37.54%
FPA
First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund
3.52%4.71%3.40%3.02%4.22%5.12%1.59%3.90%2.81%3.15%2.42%1.74%

Frequently Asked Questions


FPA and EWM have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FPA has higher volatility (12.96%) compared to EWM (4.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPA dropped -52.91% vs EWM's -89.19%.

On 10-year performance, FPA leads with 11.25% vs 2.59% for EWM. On fees, EWM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, EWM has been the lower-risk option at 4.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FPA has performed better with a 11.25% return vs 2.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EWM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FPA.

FPA has the higher dividend yield at 3.52%, compared with 3.33% for EWM.

FPA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index, while EWM tracks MSCI Malaysia Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FPA and 0.49% for EWM.

FPA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.24 vs 1.49), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FPA and EWM

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer