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

Performance

XMVU.L vs. FLQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D (XMVU.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, XMVU.L achieves a 2.34% return, which is significantly lower than FLQA.L's 30.17% return.


XMVU.L

1D
-0.79%
1M
0.63%
6M
2.69%
YTD
2.34%
1Y
5.20%
3Y*
10.63%
5Y*
6.51%
10Y*

FLQA.L

1D
-1.86%
1M
-11.56%
6M
22.63%
YTD
30.17%
1Y
48.05%
3Y*
24.43%
5Y*
12.23%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
XMVU.L
Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D
2.34%7.93%15.69%9.79%-9.52%21.61%4.40%27.09%-7.70%
FLQA.L
Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc)
30.17%29.84%7.76%12.02%-12.93%4.57%6.71%9.75%-5.84%

Correlation

The correlation between XMVU.L and FLQA.L is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.13

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

0.29

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

0.36

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

0.43

Over the past year, the correlation between XMVU.L and FLQA.L has dropped to 0.13 - well below their long-term average of 0.43, 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

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

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

XMVU.L
XMVU.L Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
XMVU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2525
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMVU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMVU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
XMVU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMVU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D (XMVU.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.


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

-1.20

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.48

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.12

1.34

-0.22

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.02

3.37

-2.35

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

3.16

10.76

-7.60

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

The current XMVU.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.70, which is lower than the FLQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XMVU.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

XMVU.L vs. FLQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XMVU.L drawdown since its inception was -32.98%, 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 XMVU.L and FLQA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XMVU.LFLQA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-32.98%

-29.21%

-3.77%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.39%

-14.19%

+8.80%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.99%

-22.19%

+12.20%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-17.75%

-25.38%

+7.63%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.10%

-14.19%

+12.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.62%

-7.22%

+3.60%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.75%

4.45%

-2.70%

Volatility

XMVU.L vs. FLQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D (XMVU.L) is 2.95%, while Franklin FTSE Asia ex China ex Japan UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (FLQA.L) has a volatility of 10.89%. This indicates that XMVU.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


XMVU.LFLQA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.95%

10.89%

-7.94%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

5.92%

23.07%

-17.15%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

7.90%

25.18%

-17.28%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.61%

17.75%

-6.14%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.02%

18.53%

-5.51%

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

XMVU.L has a 0.20% 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

XMVU.L vs. FLQA.L - Dividend Comparison

XMVU.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.18%, while FLQA.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018
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%
XMVU.L
Xtrackers MSCI USA Minimum Volatility UCITS ETF 1D
1.18%1.24%1.31%1.33%1.82%1.27%1.81%1.55%1.36%

Frequently Asked Questions


XMVU.L and FLQA.L have a correlation of 0.13, 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 0.20% for XMVU.L.

XMVU.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while FLQA.L is Asia Pacific Equities. XMVU.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: Xtrackers and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for XMVU.L and 0.14% for FLQA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XMVU.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