MINV vs. FLKR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MINV (Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF) and FLKR (Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF) are both Asia Pacific Equities funds. MINV is actively managed, while FLKR is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MINV returned 34.15%/yr vs 51.14%/yr for FLKR. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MINV charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLKR.

Performance

MINV vs. FLKR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) and Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MINV achieves a 58.70% return, which is significantly lower than FLKR's 114.41% return.

MINV

• 1D: -1.11%
• 1M: 14.54%
• YTD: 58.70%
• 6M: 60.02%
• 1Y: 93.90%
• 3Y*: 34.15%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLKR

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: 29.00%
• YTD: 114.41%
• 6M: 130.14%
• 1Y: 238.40%
• 3Y*: 51.14%
• 5Y*: 19.48%
• 10Y*: —

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

MINV vs. FLKR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	58.70%	30.85%	17.32%	-2.66%	-3.11%
FLKR Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF	114.41%	91.91%	-18.84%	19.16%	1.04%

Correlation

The correlation between MINV and FLKR is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2022	0.69

The correlation between MINV and FLKR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.69 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

MINV vs. FLKR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MINV	FLKR
Technology	62.8%	64.3%
Industrials	17.8%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	3.5%	6.0%
Healthcare	3.0%	2.5%
Communication Services	2.2%	1.6%
Energy	1.5%	0.4%
Financial Services	1.2%	7.6%
Basic Materials	0.8%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.5%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	0.3%

Return for Risk

MINV vs. FLKR — Risk / Return Rank

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

MINV

MINV Risk / Return Rank: 93
MINV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
MINV Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
MINV Omega Ratio Rank: 92
MINV Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
MINV Martin Ratio Rank: 92

FLKR

FLKR Risk / Return Rank: 96
FLKR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
FLKR Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
FLKR Omega Ratio Rank: 95
FLKR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FLKR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

MINV vs. FLKR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) and Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR). 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.

	MINV	FLKR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.76	5.83	-2.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.54	5.23	-0.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.62	1.73	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.68	10.42	-1.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	23.03	38.67	-15.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MINV vs. FLKR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MINV Sharpe Ratio is 3.76, which is lower than the FLKR Sharpe Ratio of 5.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MINV and FLKR, 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

	MINV	FLKR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.76	5.83	-2.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.69	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.01	0.55	+0.46

Drawdowns

MINV vs. FLKR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MINV drawdown since its inception was -23.49%, smaller than the maximum FLKR drawdown of -50.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MINV and FLKR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MINV	FLKR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.49%	-50.06%	+26.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.88%	-23.03%	+12.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.82%	-26.39%	+6.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-49.51%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.89%	-1.77%	-0.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.07%	-22.07%	+14.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.09%	6.20%	-2.11%

Volatility

MINV vs. FLKR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF (MINV) is 10.63%, while Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF (FLKR) has a volatility of 20.21%. This indicates that MINV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLKR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MINV	FLKR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.63%	20.21%	-9.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.20%	36.52%	-15.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.11%	41.18%	-16.07%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.74%	28.19%	-4.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.74%	27.56%	-3.82%

MINV vs. FLKR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MINV has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than FLKR's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

MINV vs. FLKR - Dividend Comparison

MINV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, less than FLKR's 1.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLKR Franklin FTSE South Korea ETF	1.80%	3.87%	7.08%	2.28%	3.13%	2.12%	0.99%	2.09%	1.86%	1.02%
MINV Matthews Asia Innovators Active ETF	0.95%	1.51%	0.25%	1.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MINV and FLKR in my portfolio?

MINV and FLKR have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MINV or FLKR?

FLKR has higher volatility (20.21%) compared to MINV (10.63%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MINV dropped -23.49% vs FLKR's -50.06%.

Which ETF is better, MINV or FLKR?

On 3-year performance, FLKR leads with 51.14% vs 34.15% for MINV. On fees, FLKR is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, MINV has been the lower-risk option at 10.63%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MINV or FLKR?

Over the 3-year period, FLKR has performed better with a 51.14% return vs 34.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MINV or FLKR?

FLKR is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for MINV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MINV or FLKR?

FLKR has the higher dividend yield at 1.80%, compared with 0.95% for MINV.

What is the main difference between MINV and FLKR?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MINV and 0.09% for FLKR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLKR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.83 vs 3.76), 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.