FICS vs. FPA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FICS (First Trust International Developed Capital Strength ETF) and FPA (First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - FICS is a Global Equities fund tracking the The International Developed Capital Strength Index, while FPA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FICS returned 4.92%/yr vs 13.09%/yr for FPA. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FICS charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FPA.

Performance

FICS vs. FPA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust International Developed Capital Strength ETF (FICS) and First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FICS achieves a 0.83% return, which is significantly lower than FPA's 51.47% return.

FICS

• 1D: -0.83%
• 1M: 1.05%
• YTD: 0.83%
• 6M: 3.51%
• 1Y: 3.46%
• 3Y*: 9.67%
• 5Y*: 4.92%
• 10Y*: —

FPA

• 1D: -0.59%
• 1M: 9.98%
• YTD: 51.47%
• 6M: 51.19%
• 1Y: 82.43%
• 3Y*: 33.32%
• 5Y*: 13.09%
• 10Y*: 11.25%

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

FICS vs. FPA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FICS First Trust International Developed Capital Strength ETF	0.83%	20.44%	2.59%	18.07%	-19.47%	19.78%	2.20%
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	51.47%	43.16%	3.95%	9.97%	-14.55%	2.98%	2.60%

Correlation

The correlation between FICS and FPA is 0.48, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.48
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.53
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 17, 2020	0.47

The correlation between FICS and FPA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

FICS vs. FPA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FICS	FPA
Financial Services	28.5%	9.6%
Industrials	27.8%	37.1%
Consumer Defensive	14.2%	3.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	8.8%
Healthcare	9.7%	1.0%
Communication Services	4.0%	2.6%
Basic Materials	4.0%	4.9%
Energy	3.1%	6.7%
Technology	1.8%	16.1%
Real Estate	-	6.9%
Utilities	-	5.7%

Return for Risk

FICS vs. FPA — Risk / Return Rank

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

FICS

FICS Risk / Return Rank: 12
FICS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
FICS Sortino Ratio Rank: 12
FICS Omega Ratio Rank: 12
FICS Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
FICS Martin Ratio Rank: 13

FPA

FPA Risk / Return Rank: 88
FPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
FPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FPA Omega Ratio Rank: 86
FPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FPA Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

FICS vs. FPA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust International Developed Capital Strength ETF (FICS) and First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA). 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.

	FICS	FPA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.26	3.24	-2.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.47	3.94	-3.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	1.54	-0.48
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.34	5.39	-5.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.97	19.96	-19.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FICS vs. FPA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FICS Sharpe Ratio is 0.26, which is lower than the FPA Sharpe Ratio of 3.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FICS and FPA, 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

	FICS	FPA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26	3.24	-2.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29	0.55	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.50	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.33	+0.09

Drawdowns

FICS vs. FPA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FICS drawdown since its inception was -29.16%, smaller than the maximum FPA drawdown of -52.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FICS and FPA.

Drawdown Indicators

	FICS	FPA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.16%	-52.91%	+23.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.32%	-15.37%	+5.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.66%	-20.66%	+9.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.16%	-35.21%	+6.05%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-52.91%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.79%	-4.12%	-0.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.21%	-13.49%	+6.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.60%	4.14%	-0.54%

Volatility

FICS vs. FPA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust International Developed Capital Strength ETF (FICS) is 4.53%, while First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) has a volatility of 12.96%. This indicates that FICS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FPA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FICS	FPA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.53%	12.96%	-8.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.73%	21.92%	-11.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.26%	25.55%	-12.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.20%	23.98%	-6.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.94%	22.39%	-5.45%

FICS vs. FPA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FICS has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than FPA's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

FICS vs. FPA - Dividend Comparison

FICS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%, less than FPA's 3.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FICS First Trust International Developed Capital Strength ETF	1.96%	1.85%	2.01%	1.02%	1.89%	1.26%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	3.52%	4.71%	3.40%	3.02%	4.22%	5.12%	1.59%	3.90%	2.81%	3.15%	2.42%	1.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FICS and FPA in my portfolio?

FICS and FPA have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FICS or FPA?

FPA has higher volatility (12.96%) compared to FICS (4.53%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FICS dropped -29.16% vs FPA's -52.91%.

Which ETF is better, FICS or FPA?

On 5-year performance, FPA leads with 13.09% vs 4.92% for FICS. On fees, FICS is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, FICS has been the lower-risk option at 4.53%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FICS or FPA?

Over the 5-year period, FPA has performed better with a 13.09% return vs 4.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FICS or FPA?

FICS is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FPA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FICS or FPA?

FPA has the higher dividend yield at 3.52%, compared with 1.96% for FICS.

What is the main difference between FICS and FPA?

FICS is categorized as Global Equities, while FPA is Asia Pacific Equities. FICS tracks The International Developed Capital Strength Index, while FPA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FICS and 0.80% for FPA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FPA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.24 vs 0.26), 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.