IWL vs. FLAU

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

IWL (iShares Russell Top 200 ETF) and FLAU (Franklin FTSE Australia ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IWL is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Russell Top 200 Index, while FLAU is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IWL returned 14.18%/yr vs 5.38%/yr for FLAU. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IWL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLAU.

Performance

IWL vs. FLAU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IWL achieves a 7.88% return, which is significantly higher than FLAU's 6.56% return.

IWL

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: 7.88%
• 6M: 7.94%
• 1Y: 25.27%
• 3Y*: 22.49%
• 5Y*: 14.18%
• 10Y*: 16.17%

FLAU

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -4.69%
• YTD: 6.56%
• 6M: 8.33%
• 1Y: 11.33%
• 3Y*: 11.56%
• 5Y*: 5.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

IWL vs. FLAU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF	7.88%	19.09%	27.12%	29.77%	-19.89%	27.79%	22.10%	31.42%	-3.30%	3.66%
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF	6.56%	15.95%	1.81%	12.58%	-5.58%	9.90%	11.00%	23.38%	-10.17%	1.89%

Correlation

The correlation between IWL and FLAU is 0.66, 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	0.66
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.67

The correlation between IWL and FLAU has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

IWL vs. FLAU - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IWL	FLAU
Technology	38.2%	1.2%
Communication Services	12.9%	1.7%
Financial Services	12.0%	36.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	6.6%
Healthcare	8.8%	4.9%
Industrials	6.8%	6.4%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	3.7%
Energy	2.7%	5.7%
Basic Materials	1.4%	26.2%
Utilities	1.3%	0.8%
Real Estate	1.0%	6.4%

Return for Risk

IWL vs. FLAU — Risk / Return Rank

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

IWL

IWL Risk / Return Rank: 66
IWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
IWL Omega Ratio Rank: 68
IWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
IWL Martin Ratio Rank: 68

FLAU

FLAU Risk / Return Rank: 23
FLAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FLAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FLAU Omega Ratio Rank: 21
FLAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
FLAU Martin Ratio Rank: 27

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.

IWL vs. FLAU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) and Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU). 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.

	IWL	FLAU	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	0.67	+1.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	1.02	+1.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.13	+0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.58	1.14	+1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.38	3.45	+7.93
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IWL vs. FLAU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is higher than the FLAU Sharpe Ratio of 0.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IWL and FLAU, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IWL	FLAU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.03	0.67	+1.36
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83	0.28	+0.55
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.90	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.87	0.31	+0.56

Drawdowns

IWL vs. FLAU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IWL drawdown since its inception was -32.71%, smaller than the maximum FLAU drawdown of -45.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IWL and FLAU.

Drawdown Indicators

	IWL	FLAU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.71%	-45.73%	+13.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.83%	-10.01%	+0.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.15%	-22.03%	+2.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.65%	-24.68%	-0.97%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.71%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.76%	-6.55%	+3.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.88%	-6.79%	+2.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	3.29%	-1.06%

Volatility

IWL vs. FLAU - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Russell Top 200 ETF (IWL) is 3.99%, while Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) has a volatility of 4.98%. This indicates that IWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLAU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IWL	FLAU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.99%	4.98%	-0.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.60%	14.04%	-4.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.50%	16.96%	-4.46%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.21%	19.65%	-2.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.11%	23.59%	-5.48%

IWL vs. FLAU - Expense Ratio Comparison

IWL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than FLAU's 0.09% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

IWL vs. FLAU - Dividend Comparison

IWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.84%, less than FLAU's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF	3.05%	3.25%	3.37%	3.62%	5.91%	5.14%	2.18%	4.37%	4.34%	0.18%	0.00%	0.00%
IWL iShares Russell Top 200 ETF	0.84%	0.90%	1.04%	1.30%	1.54%	1.12%	1.30%	1.96%	1.93%	1.69%	1.96%	2.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IWL and FLAU in my portfolio?

IWL and FLAU have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IWL or FLAU?

FLAU has higher volatility (4.98%) compared to IWL (3.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IWL dropped -32.71% vs FLAU's -45.73%.

Which ETF is better, IWL or FLAU?

On 5-year performance, IWL leads with 14.18% vs 5.38% for FLAU. On fees, FLAU is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, IWL has been the lower-risk option at 3.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IWL or FLAU?

Over the 5-year period, IWL has performed better with a 14.18% return vs 5.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IWL or FLAU?

FLAU is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for IWL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IWL or FLAU?

FLAU has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 0.84% for IWL.

What is the main difference between IWL and FLAU?

IWL is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while FLAU is Asia Pacific Equities. IWL tracks Russell Top 200 Index, while FLAU tracks FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for IWL and 0.09% for FLAU.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 0.67), 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.