M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

M9SV.L (Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF) and FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - M9SV.L is a China Equities fund tracking the MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while FLQA.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, M9SV.L returned 4.68%/yr vs 13.10%/yr for FLQA.L. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. M9SV.L charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLQA.L.

Performance

M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

M9SV.L is traded in GBP, while FLQA.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the FLQA.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, M9SV.L achieves a -6.05% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 32.48% return.

M9SV.L

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: -4.01%
• 6M: -7.15%
• YTD: -6.05%
• 1Y: 0.92%
• 3Y*: 6.97%
• 5Y*: 4.68%
• 10Y*: —

FLQA.L

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: -8.90%
• 6M: 23.62%
• YTD: 32.48%
• 1Y: 51.25%
• 3Y*: 23.89%
• 5Y*: 13.10%
• 10Y*: —

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

M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
M9SV.L Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF	-6.05%	0.90%	30.30%	0.87%	-6.40%	7.53%	22.73%	5.67%	-7.13%
FLQA.L Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	32.48%	20.59%	9.64%	6.42%	-2.58%	5.56%	3.57%	5.57%	-3.45%

Correlation

The correlation between M9SV.L and FLQA.L is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.16
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2018	0.37

The correlation between M9SV.L and FLQA.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.16 (3 years) to 0.37 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

M9SV.L

M9SV.L Risk / Return Rank: 10
M9SV.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
M9SV.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
M9SV.L Omega Ratio Rank: 10
M9SV.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
M9SV.L Martin Ratio Rank: 11

FLQA.L

FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 80
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 79
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L) and Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L). 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.

	M9SV.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.08	2.12	-2.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.20	2.72	-2.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.38	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.11	3.62	-3.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.25	12.11	-11.86

M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current M9SV.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.08, which is lower than the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of M9SV.L and FLQA.L, 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

M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum M9SV.L drawdown since its inception was -21.64%, roughly equal to the maximum FLQA.L drawdown of -20.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for M9SV.L and FLQA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	M9SV.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.64%	-20.97%	-0.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.87%	-14.08%	+5.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.64%	-19.58%	-2.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.64%	-19.58%	-2.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.64%	-14.08%	-1.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.77%	-4.05%	-3.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.81%	4.22%	-0.41%

Volatility

M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Market Access STOXX China A Minimum Variance UCITS ETF (M9SV.L) is 2.75%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 11.03%. This indicates that M9SV.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	M9SV.L	FLQA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.75%	11.03%	-8.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.69%	21.87%	-14.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.32%	24.00%	-11.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.94%	16.60%	+3.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.38%	17.87%	+2.51%

M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

M9SV.L has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

M9SV.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither M9SV.L nor FLQA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both M9SV.L and FLQA.L in my portfolio?

M9SV.L and FLQA.L have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, M9SV.L or FLQA.L?

On fees, FLQA.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, M9SV.L or FLQA.L?

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for M9SV.L.

What is the main difference between M9SV.L and FLQA.L?

M9SV.L is categorized as China Equities, while FLQA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. M9SV.L tracks MSCI China A Onshore NR CNY, while FLQA.L tracks Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. They also come from different issuers: China Post Global and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for M9SV.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.