FLAU vs. IBIC
FLAU (Franklin FTSE Australia ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLAU is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FLAU returned 13.67% vs 4.42% for IBIC. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLAU charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.
Performance
FLAU vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FLAU achieves a 8.11% return, which is significantly higher than IBIC's 2.43% return.
FLAU
- 1D
- -1.87%
- 1M
- -0.86%
- YTD
- 8.11%
- 6M
- 6.54%
- 1Y
- 13.67%
- 3Y*
- 12.44%
- 5Y*
- 5.96%
- 10Y*
- —
IBIC
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.12%
- YTD
- 2.43%
- 6M
- 2.57%
- 1Y
- 4.42%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FLAU vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF | 8.11% | 15.95% | 1.81% | 10.75% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 2.43% | 4.96% | 5.25% | 2.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLAU and IBIC is -0.22, 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 | -0.22 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023 | 0.07 |
The correlation between FLAU and IBIC shifts across timeframes, from -0.22 (1 year) to 0.07 (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
FLAU vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank
FLAU
IBIC
FLAU vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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.
| FLAU | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -4.19 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -7.78 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 2.22 | -1.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.37 | 16.56 | -15.19 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 4.07 | 58.67 | -54.61 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FLAU vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLAU drawdown since its inception was -45.73%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLAU and IBIC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLAU | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -45.73% | -0.90% | -44.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.01% | -0.27% | -9.74% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.03% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.68% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.18% | -0.08% | -5.10% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.77% | -0.10% | -6.67% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.37% | 0.08% | +3.29% |
Volatility
FLAU vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison
Franklin FTSE Australia ETF (FLAU) has a higher volatility of 5.73% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.17%. This indicates that FLAU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLAU | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.73% | 0.17% | +5.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.50% | 0.67% | +13.83% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.20% | 0.89% | +16.31% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.69% | 1.56% | +18.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.57% | 1.56% | +22.01% |
FLAU vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLAU has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
FLAU vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison
FLAU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.71%, less than IBIC's 3.58% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLAU Franklin FTSE Australia ETF | 1.71% | 3.25% | 3.37% | 3.62% | 5.91% | 5.14% | 2.18% | 4.37% | 4.34% | 0.18% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 3.58% | 4.43% | 4.65% | 0.83% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLAU and IBIC have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FLAU has higher volatility (5.73%) compared to IBIC (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLAU dropped -45.73% vs IBIC's -0.90%.
On 1-year performance, FLAU leads with 13.67% vs 4.42% for IBIC. On fees, FLAU is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FLAU has performed better with a 13.67% return vs 4.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FLAU is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.10% for IBIC.
IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.58%, compared with 1.71% for FLAU.
FLAU is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. FLAU tracks FTSE Australia RIC Capped Index, while IBIC tracks ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for FLAU and 0.10% for IBIC.
IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.99 vs 0.80), 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.
Find the right allocation for FLAU and IBIC
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