PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
UC95.L vs. FLQA.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

UC95.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC95.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

UC95.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, UC95.L achieves a 5.16% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 32.48% return.


UC95.L

1D
1.31%
1M
2.32%
6M
3.07%
YTD
5.16%
1Y
7.11%
3Y*
8.48%
5Y*
7.02%
10Y*
9.19%

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)

UC95.L vs. FLQA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
UC95.L
UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis
5.16%-0.82%15.46%0.41%4.20%26.08%0.69%25.15%-4.23%
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 UC95.L and FLQA.L is -0.23, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


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

-0.23

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

0.01

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

0.12

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

0.29

The correlation between UC95.L and FLQA.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.23 (1 year) to 0.29 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

UC95.L vs. FLQA.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

UC95.L
UC95.L Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
UC95.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UC95.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2323
Sortino Ratio Rank
UC95.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
UC95.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2121
Calmar Ratio Rank
UC95.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank

FLQA.L
FLQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 8080
Overall Rank
FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8585
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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.

UC95.L vs. FLQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC95.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.


UC95.LFLQA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.45

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.66

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.12

1.38

-0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.79

3.62

-2.83

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.02

12.11

-10.09

UC95.L vs. FLQA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UC95.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.68, which is lower than the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UC95.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

UC95.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UC95.L drawdown since its inception was -28.11%, 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 UC95.L and FLQA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


UC95.LFLQA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.11%

-20.97%

-7.14%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.92%

-14.08%

+5.16%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-10.14%

-19.58%

+9.44%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-11.32%

-19.58%

+8.26%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.11%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.45%

-14.08%

+11.63%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.12%

-4.05%

-0.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.52%

4.22%

-0.70%

Volatility

UC95.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC95.L) is 3.91%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 11.03%. This indicates that UC95.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


UC95.LFLQA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.91%

11.03%

-7.12%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.22%

21.87%

-13.65%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

10.48%

24.00%

-13.52%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.02%

16.60%

-4.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.71%

17.87%

-4.16%

UC95.L vs. FLQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

UC95.L has a 0.25% 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

UC95.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

UC95.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.79%, while FLQA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
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%0.00%0.00%0.00%
UC95.L
UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis
1.79%1.99%1.61%1.53%1.29%1.13%2.06%2.11%1.91%1.68%1.37%

Frequently Asked Questions


UC95.L and FLQA.L have a correlation of -0.23, 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 0.25% for UC95.L.

UC95.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while FLQA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. UC95.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: UBS and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for UC95.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for UC95.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