INCE vs. EFAS

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

INCE (Franklin Income Equity Focus ETF) and EFAS (Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF) are both Dividend funds. INCE is actively managed, while EFAS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, INCE returned 10.52%/yr vs 12.99%/yr for EFAS. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. INCE charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for EFAS.

Performance

INCE vs. EFAS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Income Equity Focus ETF (INCE) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INCE achieves a 13.64% return, which is significantly lower than EFAS's 14.78% return.

INCE

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: -0.09%
• 6M: 10.54%
• YTD: 13.64%
• 1Y: 20.88%
• 3Y*: 15.78%
• 5Y*: 10.52%
• 10Y*: —

EFAS

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: -0.58%
• 6M: 13.14%
• YTD: 14.78%
• 1Y: 26.59%
• 3Y*: 23.34%
• 5Y*: 12.99%
• 10Y*: —

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

INCE vs. EFAS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
INCE Franklin Income Equity Focus ETF	13.64%	15.92%	10.70%	13.87%	-8.54%	23.36%	12.33%	32.72%	-2.14%	19.66%
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	14.78%	46.83%	3.07%	14.65%	-8.00%	12.75%	-5.42%	14.60%	-11.60%	22.76%

Correlation

The correlation between INCE and EFAS is 0.58, 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	0.58
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.49
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 16, 2016	0.50

The correlation between INCE and EFAS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

INCE vs. EFAS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	INCE	EFAS
Industrials	16.2%	10.4%
Consumer Defensive	15.5%	8.1%
Energy	13.3%	13.1%
Utilities	12.6%	13.7%
Technology	10.5%	0.1%
Financial Services	9.5%	31.0%
Basic Materials	7.5%	1.7%
Healthcare	7.1%	0.1%
Communication Services	4.2%	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	3.7%	1.9%
Real Estate	-	11.4%

Return for Risk

INCE vs. EFAS — Risk / Return Rank

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

INCE

INCE Risk / Return Rank: 91
INCE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
INCE Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
INCE Omega Ratio Rank: 90
INCE Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
INCE Martin Ratio Rank: 89

EFAS

EFAS Risk / Return Rank: 89
EFAS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
EFAS Omega Ratio Rank: 88
EFAS Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
EFAS Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

INCE vs. EFAS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Income Equity Focus ETF (INCE) and Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS). 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.

	INCE	EFAS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.50	2.45	+0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.63	3.45	+0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.43	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.28	5.04	-0.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.57	12.31	+3.27

INCE vs. EFAS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INCE Sharpe Ratio is 2.50, which is comparable to the EFAS Sharpe Ratio of 2.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INCE and EFAS, 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

INCE vs. EFAS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INCE drawdown since its inception was -33.95%, smaller than the maximum EFAS drawdown of -44.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INCE and EFAS.

Drawdown Indicators

	INCE	EFAS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.95%	-44.38%	+10.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.90%	-5.30%	+0.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.01%	-11.84%	-2.17%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.40%	-28.81%	+10.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-1.45%	+0.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.23%	-7.02%	+3.79%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.35%	2.17%	-0.82%

Volatility

INCE vs. EFAS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin Income Equity Focus ETF (INCE) is 2.57%, while Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF (EFAS) has a volatility of 3.08%. This indicates that INCE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EFAS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	INCE	EFAS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.57%	3.08%	-0.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.10%	8.70%	-2.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.39%	10.94%	-2.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.27%	15.57%	-2.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.63%	18.27%	-2.64%

INCE vs. EFAS - Expense Ratio Comparison

INCE has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than EFAS's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

INCE vs. EFAS - Dividend Comparison

INCE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.74%, which matches EFAS's 4.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
EFAS Global X MSCI SuperDividend® EAFE ETF	4.75%	4.83%	6.76%	6.33%	7.28%	5.19%	4.34%	5.75%	6.63%	6.15%	0.21%
INCE Franklin Income Equity Focus ETF	4.74%	4.71%	3.25%	1.75%	1.68%	1.41%	1.40%	1.31%	1.55%	1.44%	0.50%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both INCE and EFAS in my portfolio?

INCE and EFAS have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, INCE or EFAS?

EFAS has higher volatility (3.08%) compared to INCE (2.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INCE dropped -33.95% vs EFAS's -44.38%.

Which ETF is better, INCE or EFAS?

On 5-year performance, EFAS leads with 12.99% vs 10.52% for INCE. On fees, INCE is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, INCE has been the lower-risk option at 2.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, INCE or EFAS?

Over the 5-year period, EFAS has performed better with a 12.99% return vs 10.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, INCE or EFAS?

INCE is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for EFAS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, INCE or EFAS?

EFAS has the higher dividend yield at 4.75%, compared with 4.74% for INCE.

What is the main difference between INCE and EFAS?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for INCE and 0.55% for EFAS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INCE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.50 vs 2.45), 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.