CVRT vs. FLJH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CVRT (Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CVRT is a Convertible Bonds fund actively managed by Calamos, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. CVRT is actively managed, while FLJH is passively managed. Over the past year, CVRT returned 76.22% vs 46.83% for FLJH. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CVRT charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

CVRT vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF (CVRT) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CVRT achieves a 40.89% return, which is significantly higher than FLJH's 20.31% return.

CVRT

• 1D: -1.21%
• 1M: 8.71%
• YTD: 40.89%
• 6M: 41.79%
• 1Y: 76.22%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLJH

• 1D: 0.71%
• 1M: 8.59%
• YTD: 20.31%
• 6M: 18.71%
• 1Y: 46.83%
• 3Y*: 27.99%
• 5Y*: 20.80%
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CVRT vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CVRT Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF	40.89%	29.37%	13.23%	11.02%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	20.31%	25.26%	25.89%	7.98%

Correlation

The correlation between CVRT and FLJH is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2023	0.46

CVRT vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CVRT	FLJH
Technology	43.9%	17.4%
Utilities	14.0%	1.3%
Industrials	8.9%	26.6%
Financial Services	8.2%	15.9%
Healthcare	7.4%	5.9%
Communication Services	3.4%	7.1%
Real Estate	2.7%	3.4%
Energy	2.4%	1.0%
Basic Materials	2.1%	4.3%
Consumer Cyclical	1.4%	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	4.2%

Return for Risk

CVRT vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

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

CVRT

CVRT Risk / Return Rank: 93
CVRT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
CVRT Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
CVRT Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CVRT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CVRT Martin Ratio Rank: 96

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 80
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 79
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

CVRT vs. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF (CVRT) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). 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.

	CVRT	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.57	2.62	+0.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.32	3.61	+0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.48	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.91	4.36	+4.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	34.91	17.09	+17.83
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CVRT vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CVRT Sharpe Ratio is 3.57, which is higher than the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CVRT and FLJH, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CVRT	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.57	2.62	+0.95
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.13	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.84	0.75	+1.10

Drawdowns

CVRT vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CVRT drawdown since its inception was -20.71%, smaller than the maximum FLJH drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CVRT and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	CVRT	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.71%	-31.51%	+10.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.60%	-10.80%	+2.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.21%	0.00%	-1.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.06%	-5.32%	+2.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.19%	2.75%	-0.56%

Volatility

CVRT vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF (CVRT) has a higher volatility of 7.64% compared to Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) at 3.45%. This indicates that CVRT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CVRT	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.64%	3.45%	+4.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.57%	13.38%	+4.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.47%	17.98%	+3.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.96%	18.51%	+1.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.96%	19.82%	+0.14%

CVRT vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

CVRT has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than FLJH's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

CVRT vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

CVRT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.43%, less than FLJH's 3.24% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CVRT Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF	1.43%	1.68%	1.49%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	3.24%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CVRT and FLJH in my portfolio?

CVRT and FLJH have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CVRT or FLJH?

CVRT has higher volatility (7.64%) compared to FLJH (3.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CVRT dropped -20.71% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, CVRT or FLJH?

On 1-year performance, CVRT leads with 76.22% vs 46.83% for FLJH. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 3.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CVRT or FLJH?

Over the 1-year period, CVRT has performed better with a 76.22% return vs 46.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CVRT or FLJH?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CVRT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CVRT or FLJH?

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 3.24%, compared with 1.43% for CVRT.

What is the main difference between CVRT and FLJH?

CVRT is categorized as Convertible Bonds, while FLJH is Japan Equities. They also come from different issuers: Calamos and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CVRT and 0.09% for FLJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CVRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.57 vs 2.62), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.