PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
SEDM.L vs. FLQA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

SEDM.L vs. FLQA.L

Last updated Jul 22, 2026
Documentation

SEDM.L (iShares MSCI EM IMI Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and FLQA.L (Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - SEDM.L is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI EM IMI Screened Index, 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, SEDM.L returned 6.98%/yr vs 13.16%/yr for FLQA.L. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. SEDM.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLQA.L.

Performance

SEDM.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EM IMI Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (SEDM.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...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SEDM.L achieves a 18.51% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 35.09% return.

SEDM.L

1D
2.10%
1M
-7.21%
6M
13.19%
YTD
18.51%
1Y
31.62%
3Y*
20.07%
5Y*
6.98%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
9.88%

FLQA.L

1D
3.27%
1M
-9.01%
6M
27.95%
YTD
35.09%
1Y
53.14%
3Y*
26.07%
5Y*
13.16%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
10.13%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
SEDM.L
iShares MSCI EM IMI Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		18.51%32.84%7.40%10.53%-20.48%-1.52%19.90%16.95%1.21%
FLQA.L
Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		35.09%29.84%7.76%12.02%-12.93%4.57%6.71%9.75%1.67%

Correlation

The correlation between SEDM.L and FLQA.L is 0.94, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

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

0.94

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

0.91

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

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 19, 2018

0.90

The correlation between SEDM.L and FLQA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

SEDM.L vs. FLQA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
SEDM.L
FLQA.L

Technology

45.0%
58.1%

Financial Services

17.8%
15.2%

Consumer Cyclical

7.9%
4.2%

Industrials

7.2%
7.8%

Communication Services

5.8%
2.2%

Basic Materials

5.2%
2.9%

Healthcare

3.3%
2.2%

Energy

2.6%
2.0%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
2.0%

Real Estate

1.5%
1.7%

Utilities

1.1%
1.8%

Technology

SEDM.L
45.0%
FLQA.L
58.1%

Financial Services

SEDM.L
17.8%
FLQA.L
15.2%

Consumer Cyclical

SEDM.L
7.9%
FLQA.L
4.2%

Industrials

SEDM.L
7.2%
FLQA.L
7.8%

Communication Services

SEDM.L
5.8%
FLQA.L
2.2%

Basic Materials

SEDM.L
5.2%
FLQA.L
2.9%

Healthcare

SEDM.L
3.3%
FLQA.L
2.2%

Energy

SEDM.L
2.6%
FLQA.L
2.0%

Consumer Defensive

SEDM.L
2.6%
FLQA.L
2.0%

Real Estate

SEDM.L
1.5%
FLQA.L
1.7%

Utilities

SEDM.L
1.1%
FLQA.L
1.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI EM IMI Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist)

Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)

Often compared with SEDM.L:
SEDM.L vs. MIST.LSEDM.L vs. CSP1.LSEDM.L vs. IUIT.LSEDM.L vs. MINT.LSEDM.L vs. FLES.LSEDM.L vs. IGLN.LSEDM.L vs. ISAC.L
Often compared with FLQA.L:
FLQA.L vs. FRXD.LFLQA.L vs. FLES.LFLQA.L vs. FLRG.LFLQA.L vs. FLXB.LFLQA.L vs. FLXK.LFLQA.L vs. FLXX.LFLQA.L vs. FRGD.L

Return for Risk

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
SEDM.L
SEDM.L Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
SEDM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SEDM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
SEDM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
SEDM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6262
Calmar Ratio Rank
SEDM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5656
Martin Ratio Rank
FLQA.L
FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8484
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EM IMI Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (SEDM.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.

SEDM.LFLQA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.43
2.09

-0.65

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.99
2.70

-0.70

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.27

1.37

-0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.37

3.73

-1.36

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.30

11.55

-4.25

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

The current SEDM.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is lower than the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SEDM.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

SEDM.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SEDM.L drawdown since its inception was -38.83%, which is greater than FLQA.L's maximum drawdown of -29.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SEDM.L and FLQA.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

SEDM.LFLQA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.83%

-29.21%

-9.62%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.30%

-14.19%

+0.89%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.22%

-22.19%

+4.97%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.83%

-25.38%

-9.45%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.57%

-10.95%

+2.38%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.84%

-7.23%

-5.61%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.32%

4.59%

-0.27%

Volatility

SEDM.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EM IMI Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (SEDM.L) is 9.25%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 11.26%. This indicates that SEDM.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

SEDM.LFLQA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

9.25%

11.26%

-2.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

19.84%

23.25%

-3.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.98%

25.36%

-3.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.02%

17.81%

+1.21%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.21%

18.55%

+1.66%

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

SEDM.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than FLQA.L's 0.14% 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

SEDM.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

SEDM.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%, while FLQA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
FLQA.L
Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
SEDM.L
iShares MSCI EM IMI Screened UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		1.71%1.96%2.37%2.33%2.56%1.83%1.51%2.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.94, SEDM.L and FLQA.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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 0.18% for SEDM.L.

SEDM.L is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while FLQA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. SEDM.L tracks MSCI EM IMI Screened Index, while FLQA.L tracks Linked FTSE Asia ex Japan ex China Index - Net Return. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for SEDM.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SEDM.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