GMF vs. FLJH

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

GMF (SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GMF is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GMF returned 5.48%/yr vs 21.36%/yr for FLJH. At a 0.48 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GMF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

GMF vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GMF achieves a 10.08% return, which is significantly lower than FLJH's 20.27% return.

GMF

• 1D: -1.10%
• 1M: -2.73%
• 6M: 5.01%
• YTD: 10.08%
• 1Y: 19.69%
• 3Y*: 16.30%
• 5Y*: 5.48%
• 10Y*: 9.15%

FLJH

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: -0.89%
• 6M: 12.70%
• YTD: 20.27%
• 1Y: 44.73%
• 3Y*: 27.57%
• 5Y*: 21.36%
• 10Y*: —

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

GMF vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF	10.08%	21.99%	16.55%	8.20%	-18.99%	-1.93%	24.96%	19.92%	-14.25%	2.18%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	20.27%	25.26%	25.89%	36.02%	-2.75%	12.68%	10.65%	20.34%	-14.66%	1.26%

Correlation

The correlation between GMF and FLJH is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.48

The correlation between GMF and FLJH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.45 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

GMF vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GMF	FLJH
Technology	40.8%	19.4%
Financial Services	15.4%	15.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.7%	12.7%
Industrials	7.3%	25.2%
Communication Services	6.4%	8.0%
Basic Materials	5.8%	4.4%
Healthcare	4.5%	5.5%
Energy	3.1%	0.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	4.0%
Utilities	2.0%	1.2%
Real Estate	1.0%	3.0%

Return for Risk

GMF vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMF

GMF Risk / Return Rank: 37
GMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
GMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
GMF Omega Ratio Rank: 35
GMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
GMF Martin Ratio Rank: 42

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 88
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 87
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

GMF vs. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). 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.

	GMF	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.08	2.33	-1.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.58	3.11	-1.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.42	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.57	4.16	-2.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.45	15.64	-10.19

GMF vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is lower than the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMF and FLJH, 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

GMF vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than FLJH's maximum drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMF	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.18%	-31.51%	-35.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.62%	-10.80%	-1.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.43%	-20.39%	-1.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.78%	-20.39%	-13.39%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.33%	-4.01%	-1.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.51%	-5.27%	-11.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.62%	2.87%	+0.75%

Volatility

GMF vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) have volatilities of 7.02% and 6.77%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMF	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.02%	6.77%	+0.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.64%	15.03%	+0.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.29%	19.26%	-0.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.86%	18.72%	+0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.24%	19.88%	-0.64%

GMF vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMF has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than FLJH's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMF vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than FLJH's 2.50% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	2.50%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%	0.00%	0.00%
GMF SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF	1.22%	1.49%	1.92%	2.75%	2.54%	2.71%	1.32%	1.75%	2.26%	1.70%	2.49%	3.76%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMF and FLJH in my portfolio?

GMF and FLJH have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GMF or FLJH?

GMF has higher volatility (7.02%) compared to FLJH (6.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, GMF or FLJH?

On 5-year performance, FLJH leads with 21.36% vs 5.48% for GMF. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 6.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMF or FLJH?

Over the 5-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 21.36% return vs 5.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMF or FLJH?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for GMF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GMF or FLJH?

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 2.50%, compared with 1.22% for GMF.

What is the main difference between GMF and FLJH?

GMF is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FLJH is Japan Equities. GMF tracks S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while FLJH tracks FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GMF and 0.09% for FLJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.33 vs 1.08), 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.