PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
MOGB.L vs. FLQA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

MOGB.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in VanEck Morningstar US Sustainable Wide Moat UCITS ETF (MOGB.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.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

MOGB.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, MOGB.L achieves a 0.40% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 30.36% return.


MOGB.L

1D
-0.33%
1M
3.20%
6M
-1.70%
YTD
0.40%
1Y
7.29%
3Y*
6.56%
5Y*
4.24%
10Y*
7.47%

FLQA.L

1D
-1.70%
1M
-12.65%
6M
21.93%
YTD
30.36%
1Y
47.65%
3Y*
23.13%
5Y*
12.74%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
MOGB.L
VanEck Morningstar US Sustainable Wide Moat UCITS ETF
0.40%0.00%12.94%11.88%-9.07%27.24%9.78%29.63%-7.65%
FLQA.L
Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
30.36%20.59%9.64%6.42%-2.58%5.56%3.57%5.57%-3.45%

Correlation

The correlation between MOGB.L and FLQA.L is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.27

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.39

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.40

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 27, 2018

0.49

Over the past year, the correlation between MOGB.L and FLQA.L has dropped to 0.27 - well below their long-term average of 0.49, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

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

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

MOGB.L
MOGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 2020
Overall Rank
MOGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2222
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MOGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2121
Sortino Ratio Rank
MOGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
MOGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
MOGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
Martin Ratio Rank

FLQA.L
FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 7878
Overall Rank
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7777
Omega Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Morningstar US Sustainable Wide Moat UCITS ETF (MOGB.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.


MOGB.LFLQA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.38

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.64

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.11

1.35

-0.25

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.66

3.07

-2.41

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.52

10.98

-9.46

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

The current MOGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is lower than the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MOGB.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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

MOGB.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MOGB.L drawdown since its inception was -26.42%, which is greater than FLQA.L's maximum drawdown of -20.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MOGB.L and FLQA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


MOGB.LFLQA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-26.42%

-20.97%

-5.45%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.01%

-15.46%

+4.45%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-22.73%

-19.58%

-3.15%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.73%

-19.58%

-3.15%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-26.42%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.99%

-15.46%

+11.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.83%

-4.06%

-3.77%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.79%

4.33%

+0.46%

Volatility

MOGB.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Morningstar US Sustainable Wide Moat UCITS ETF (MOGB.L) is 5.12%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 10.51%. This indicates that MOGB.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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


MOGB.LFLQA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.12%

10.51%

-5.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.63%

21.94%

-12.31%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.58%

24.07%

-11.49%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.04%

16.61%

+3.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.72%

17.88%

+4.84%

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

MOGB.L has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% expense ratio.


Dividends

MOGB.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


MOGB.L and FLQA.L have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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.

FLQA.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for MOGB.L.

MOGB.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while FLQA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. MOGB.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while FLQA.L tracks Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for MOGB.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for MOGB.L and FLQA.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer