What is the primary difference between EWW and FLMX regarding their expense ratios and net assets?

EWW has an expense ratio of 0.50% and net assets of $1.7 billion, while FLMX has a lower expense ratio of 0.19% but smaller net assets of $82 million. The expense ratio represents the annual cost to hold the fund, whereas net assets indicate the fund's size. A larger asset base like EWW's may suggest better liquidity for trading, while FLMX's lower fee could reduce long-term holding costs, assuming similar performance.

How do the inception dates of EWW and FLMX compare, and what does this imply?

EWW was launched in March 1996, offering over two decades of track record history. In contrast, FLMX began in November 2017, providing a shorter historical record. For investors, a longer inception date generally allows for more comprehensive evaluation of performance across various market cycles, while newer funds like FLMX offer less historical data but may incorporate more modern indexing methodologies or fee structures.

What role do issuers and transparency play in comparing EWW and FLMX?

EWW is identified as an iShares product, which provides clarity on its management and brand reputation. For FLMX, while it is Franklin Templeton's ETF, the specific issuer data fields are marked as not available in the provided details. Additionally, both funds lack publicly available top holdings or sector weights in the dataset. Transparency regarding issuer identity and portfolio composition helps investors assess management quality and potential risks.

How do the dividend yields of EWW and FLMX compare for income-focused investors?

FLMX offers a dividend yield of 3.96%, which is higher than EWW's yield of 3.34%. While FLMX provides a marginally better income potential based on these figures, it is important to remember that dividend yields can fluctuate based on the underlying companies' payouts and market conditions. A higher yield is not always superior, as it must be evaluated alongside the fund's total return and risk profile.

What is the impact of the fee difference between EWW and FLMX over time?

The 0.31 percentage point difference in expense ratios (EWW at 0.50% versus FLMX at 0.19%) means FLMX is cheaper to hold annually. Over a 10-year period, assuming identical gross returns, this fee gap could result in a tangible difference in net returns, compounding to affect the final portfolio value. However, lower fees do not guarantee better performance, especially if liquidity constraints or tracking differences arise.

Are the top holdings of EWW and FLMX similar to each other?

According to the provided data, there are no shared top-10 holdings between EWW and FLMX. The top holdings for EWW are listed as 'not available,' as are the sector weights. Since FLMX's specific top holdings are also not provided in detail, direct comparison is limited. The absence of overlap among listed top holdings suggests they may follow different index methodologies or have different portfolio constructions despite targeting the same region.

What does the lack of sector weight data imply for both EWW and FLMX?

Both EWW and FLMX have 'not available' data for sector weights in the provided dataset. This limits an investor's ability to understand the economic concentration of the portfolio, such as exposure to financials, industrials, or consumer discretionary sectors. Without this information, it is difficult to gauge how these funds might perform relative to specific sector trends or to assess diversification within the Mexican market.

What type of market exposure do EWW and FLMX provide?

Both EWW and FLMX are categorised as 'Focused Region' funds, targeting the Mexican equity market. This means their performance is heavily tied to the political and economic conditions specific to Mexico. They do not offer global diversification. Investing in either fund provides access to emerging market dynamics, which can offer growth potential but also carries higher volatility compared to developed market indexes.

How do the index tracking capabilities of EWW and FLMX compare?

The data indicates that the specific index tracked by both EWW and FLMX is 'not available'. While FLMX's name suggests it tracks the FTSE Mexico Index, and EWW's name suggests the MSCI Mexico Index, the provided dataset does not confirm the precise index tracking error or methodology. Differences in index providers often lead to variations in constituent selection and weighting, which can result in divergent performance.

How do the net assets of EWW and FLMX affect liquidity for traders?

EWW possesses significantly higher net assets at $1.7 billion compared to FLMX's $82 million. Generally, larger asset bases support higher trading volumes, which can lead to tighter bid-ask spreads and better liquidity for executing trades. FLMX's smaller size might result in wider spreads or difficulty in trading large block orders without impacting the price, which is a practical consideration for active traders.

Which ETF would be more suitable for a beginner in Mexico exposure?

Neither fund is inherently more suitable; it depends on investor priorities. EWW, with its longer track record since 1996 and larger asset base, offers established liquidity and history. FLMX provides lower expenses and a slightly higher yield but has a shorter history since 2017. Beginners should weigh the cost savings of FLMX against the historical stability and liquidity of EWW, noting that neither is recommended specifically for beginners.

EWW vs FLMX

Two funds, one decision: we compare cost, performance and what each ETF actually holds in October 2026.

Compare EWW (Mexico MSCI Capped ETF iShares) and FLMX (Franklin Templeton Etf Ftse Mexico Etf) on fees, holdings, dividends and index tracking. EWW has a 0.50% expense ratio, $1.7bn assets, 3.34% yield. FLMX has 0.19% expenses, $82m assets, 3.96% yield. Shared top-10 holdings are none among listed top holdings. Educational content, not financial advice.

Compare EWW (Mexico MSCI Capped ETF iShares) and FLMX (Franklin Templeton Etf Ftse Mexico Etf) on fees, holdings, dividends and index tracking. EWW has a 0.50% expense ratio, $1.7bn assets, 3.34% yiel...

Fund Snapshot

Key Fund Metrics

EWW

Metric

FLMX

0.50%

Expense Ratio

0.19%

3.34%

Dividend Yield

3.96%

$1.66B

Net Assets

$81.94M

44

Holdings

40

Mar 12, 1996

Inception Date

Nov 3, 2017

–

Index Tracked

–

Focused Region

Fund Category

Focused Region

FLMX costs about $31.00 less per year for every $10,000 invested.

Shared Top Holdings

These funds do not share any of their top holdings.

Investment Analysis

EWW

Pros

Established history with a 1996 inception date, offering long-term track record familiarity for investors.
Significant net assets of $1.7 billion indicate substantial liquidity and market depth for trading.
Reasonable dividend yield of 3.34% provides an attractive income component for holding the fund.

Considerations

Relatively high expense ratio of 0.50% increases the total cost of ownership over time.
Concentration in a single emerging market creates exposure to specific regional political and economic risks.
Lack of publicly available details on sector weights or top holdings reduces transparency for portfolio construction.

FLMX

Pros

Low expense ratio of 0.19% makes this fund significantly cheaper to hold than higher-cost alternatives.
Slightly higher dividend yield of 3.96% offers a marginally better income potential for investors.
Focus on the FTSE Mexico index allows for targeted exposure to Mexican equities for tactical allocation.

Considerations

Smaller net assets of $82 million may result in lower liquidity and wider bid-ask spreads.
Inception in 2017 means the fund lacks a long-term historical performance track record.
Absence of specified issuer information and detailed holdings limits transparency and counterparty assessment.

Related Market Insights

Mexico's Tariff Wall: A Boon For Local Industry

Mexico's new tariffs on Chinese imports create a significant boost for domestic manufacturers. Discover investment opportunities in automotive, steel, & consumer goods with Nemo.