GLIN vs. FLTW

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GLIN (VanEck Vectors India Growth Leaders ETF) and FLTW (Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds - GLIN tracks the MarketGrader India All-Cap Growth Leaders Index while FLTW tracks the FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLIN returned 5.66%/yr vs 21.46%/yr for FLTW. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLIN charges 0.82%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLTW.

Performance

GLIN vs. FLTW - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Vectors India Growth Leaders ETF (GLIN) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLIN achieves a 1.48% return, which is significantly lower than FLTW's 69.07% return.

GLIN

• 1D: -2.40%
• 1M: 4.54%
• YTD: 1.48%
• 6M: 0.11%
• 1Y: 0.38%
• 3Y*: 11.98%
• 5Y*: 5.66%
• 10Y*: 2.82%

FLTW

• 1D: -5.93%
• 1M: 8.95%
• YTD: 69.07%
• 6M: 72.09%
• 1Y: 109.94%
• 3Y*: 41.99%
• 5Y*: 21.46%
• 10Y*: —

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

GLIN vs. FLTW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GLIN VanEck Vectors India Growth Leaders ETF	1.48%	-5.47%	15.64%	36.13%	-21.46%	29.57%	-0.29%	-21.49%	-37.41%	6.47%
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	69.07%	32.00%	16.68%	30.05%	-27.51%	29.46%	29.77%	31.23%	-9.32%	-1.28%

Correlation

The correlation between GLIN and FLTW is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.37
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.41

GLIN vs. FLTW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLIN	FLTW
Financial Services	35.5%	11.2%
Industrials	20.5%	3.3%
Consumer Cyclical	14.5%	1.5%
Healthcare	8.2%	0.6%
Basic Materials	8.1%	2.5%
Communication Services	5.2%	1.4%
Utilities	3.6%	-
Energy	2.2%	0.1%
Technology	2.0%	78.7%
Consumer Defensive	0.6%	0.7%
Real Estate	0.0%	-

Return for Risk

GLIN vs. FLTW — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLIN

GLIN Risk / Return Rank: 9
GLIN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
GLIN Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
GLIN Omega Ratio Rank: 8
GLIN Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
GLIN Martin Ratio Rank: 9

FLTW

FLTW Risk / Return Rank: 94
FLTW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
FLTW Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
FLTW Omega Ratio Rank: 93
FLTW Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FLTW 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.

GLIN vs. FLTW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors India Growth Leaders ETF (GLIN) and Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW). 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.

	GLIN	FLTW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.02	3.80	-3.78
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.16	4.09	-3.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.60	-0.58
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.02	10.17	-10.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.06	30.39	-30.33

GLIN vs. FLTW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLIN Sharpe Ratio is 0.02, which is lower than the FLTW Sharpe Ratio of 3.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLIN and FLTW, 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

GLIN vs. FLTW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLIN drawdown since its inception was -79.36%, which is greater than FLTW's maximum drawdown of -38.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLIN and FLTW.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLIN	FLTW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.36%	-38.00%	-41.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.56%	-10.87%	-7.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.77%	-26.45%	-0.32%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.97%	-38.00%	+7.03%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-74.80%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-42.32%	-5.93%	-36.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-50.93%	-8.41%	-42.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.38%	3.63%	+2.75%

Volatility

GLIN vs. FLTW - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Vectors India Growth Leaders ETF (GLIN) is 6.25%, while Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF (FLTW) has a volatility of 16.14%. This indicates that GLIN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLTW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLIN	FLTW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.25%	16.14%	-9.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.84%	25.07%	-9.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.07%	29.07%	-11.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.32%	23.23%	-4.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.67%	22.20%	+1.47%

GLIN vs. FLTW - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLIN has a 0.82% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTW's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLIN vs. FLTW - Dividend Comparison

GLIN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.83%, less than FLTW's 1.42% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLTW Franklin FTSE Taiwan ETF	1.42%	2.51%	1.89%	2.85%	3.16%	2.31%	2.14%	3.00%	1.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GLIN VanEck Vectors India Growth Leaders ETF	0.83%	0.84%	3.58%	0.96%	1.70%	0.00%	0.24%	1.42%	0.12%	0.10%	1.39%	3.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLIN and FLTW in my portfolio?

GLIN and FLTW have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLIN or FLTW?

FLTW has higher volatility (16.14%) compared to GLIN (6.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLIN dropped -79.36% vs FLTW's -38.00%.

Which ETF is better, GLIN or FLTW?

On 5-year performance, FLTW leads with 21.46% vs 5.66% for GLIN. On fees, FLTW is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, GLIN has been the lower-risk option at 6.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GLIN or FLTW?

Over the 5-year period, FLTW has performed better with a 21.46% return vs 5.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLIN or FLTW?

FLTW is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for GLIN.

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

FLTW has the higher dividend yield at 1.42%, compared with 0.83% for GLIN.

What is the main difference between GLIN and FLTW?

GLIN tracks MarketGrader India All-Cap Growth Leaders Index, while FLTW tracks FTSE Taiwan RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.82% for GLIN and 0.19% for FLTW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.80 vs 0.02), 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.