GMF vs. FLJP

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

GMF (SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF) and FLJP (Franklin FTSE Japan ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GMF is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the S&P Asia Pacific Emerging BMI Index, while FLJP is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GMF returned 5.48%/yr vs 9.33%/yr for FLJP. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GMF charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJP.

Performance

GMF vs. FLJP - 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 ETF (FLJP). 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 FLJP's 14.50% 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%

FLJP

• 1D: -1.68%
• 1M: -2.24%
• 6M: 8.43%
• YTD: 14.50%
• 1Y: 33.04%
• 3Y*: 17.45%
• 5Y*: 9.33%
• 10Y*: —

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

GMF vs. FLJP - 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%
FLJP Franklin FTSE Japan ETF	14.50%	26.79%	6.99%	20.00%	-16.57%	0.99%	15.76%	18.99%	-14.01%	2.53%

Correlation

The correlation between GMF and FLJP is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.60

The correlation between GMF and FLJP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

GMF vs. FLJP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GMF	FLJP
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%	2.9%

Return for Risk

GMF vs. FLJP — 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

FLJP

FLJP Risk / Return Rank: 62
FLJP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
FLJP Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
FLJP Omega Ratio Rank: 64
FLJP Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
FLJP Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. FLJP - 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 ETF (FLJP). 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	FLJP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.08	1.66	-0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.58	2.32	-0.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.31	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.57	2.50	-0.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.45	8.61	-3.16

GMF vs. FLJP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.08, which is lower than the FLJP Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GMF and FLJP, 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. FLJP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMF drawdown since its inception was -67.18%, which is greater than FLJP's maximum drawdown of -32.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMF and FLJP.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMF	FLJP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.18%	-32.49%	-34.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.62%	-13.30%	+0.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.43%	-14.17%	-7.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.78%	-32.49%	-1.29%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-40.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.33%	-4.49%	-0.84%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.51%	-9.27%	-7.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.62%	3.85%	-0.23%

Volatility

GMF vs. FLJP - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF (GMF) has a higher volatility of 7.02% compared to Franklin FTSE Japan ETF (FLJP) at 6.58%. This indicates that GMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GMF	FLJP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.02%	6.58%	+0.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.64%	16.36%	-0.72%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.29%	19.98%	-1.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.86%	18.00%	+0.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.24%	17.89%	+1.35%

GMF vs. FLJP - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GMF vs. FLJP - Dividend Comparison

GMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.22%, less than FLJP's 4.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLJP Franklin FTSE Japan ETF	4.30%	5.15%	4.56%	3.00%	1.92%	2.40%	1.51%	2.26%	1.50%	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 FLJP in my portfolio?

GMF and FLJP have a correlation of 0.63, 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 FLJP?

GMF has higher volatility (7.02%) compared to FLJP (6.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GMF dropped -67.18% vs FLJP's -32.49%.

Which ETF is better, GMF or FLJP?

On 5-year performance, FLJP leads with 9.33% vs 5.48% for GMF. On fees, FLJP is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJP has been the lower-risk option at 6.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GMF or FLJP?

Over the 5-year period, FLJP has performed better with a 9.33% 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 FLJP?

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

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

FLJP has the higher dividend yield at 4.30%, compared with 1.22% for GMF.

What is the main difference between GMF and FLJP?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 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.