FLCB vs. EDGF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FLCB (Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF) and EDGF (3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FLCB returned 5.33% vs 3.51% for EDGF. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLCB charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for EDGF.

Performance

FLCB vs. EDGF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF (FLCB) and 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF (EDGF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCB achieves a 0.41% return, which is significantly lower than EDGF's 0.95% return.

FLCB

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.09%
• YTD: 0.41%
• 6M: 0.52%
• 1Y: 5.33%
• 3Y*: 4.02%
• 5Y*: 0.07%
• 10Y*: —

EDGF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.16%
• YTD: 0.95%
• 6M: 1.08%
• 1Y: 3.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLCB vs. EDGF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLCB Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF	0.41%	6.95%	-2.63%
EDGF 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF	0.95%	4.36%	-1.41%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCB and EDGF is 0.60, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2024	0.72

The correlation between FLCB and EDGF shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (1 year) to 0.72 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLCB vs. EDGF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCB	EDGF
Financial Services	2.6%	99.2%
Healthcare	1.1%	-
Energy	0.7%	-
Communication Services	0.6%	-
Utilities	0.4%	-
Industrials	0.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	0.2%	-
Technology	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	0.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

FLCB vs. EDGF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCB

FLCB Risk / Return Rank: 37
FLCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
FLCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
FLCB Omega Ratio Rank: 37
FLCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
FLCB Martin Ratio Rank: 35

EDGF

EDGF Risk / Return Rank: 65
EDGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
EDGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
EDGF Omega Ratio Rank: 58
EDGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
EDGF Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

FLCB vs. EDGF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF (FLCB) and 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF (EDGF). 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.

	FLCB	EDGF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	1.81	-0.42
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.04	2.87	-0.82
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.37	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.77	5.19	-3.42
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.46	13.35	-7.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLCB vs. EDGF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCB Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is comparable to the EDGF Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCB and EDGF, 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

	FLCB	EDGF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.39	1.81	-0.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.01	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.17	0.99	-0.82

Drawdowns

FLCB vs. EDGF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCB drawdown since its inception was -18.82%, which is greater than EDGF's maximum drawdown of -1.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCB and EDGF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCB	EDGF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.82%	-1.62%	-17.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.85%	-0.64%	-2.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.16%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.48%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.22%	-0.03%	-2.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.63%	-0.46%	-6.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.93%	0.25%	+0.68%

Volatility

FLCB vs. EDGF - Volatility Comparison

Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF (FLCB) has a higher volatility of 1.27% compared to 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF (EDGF) at 0.27%. This indicates that FLCB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EDGF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCB	EDGF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.27%	0.27%	+1.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.77%	1.28%	+1.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.87%	1.95%	+1.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.75%	2.35%	+3.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.51%	2.35%	+3.16%

FLCB vs. EDGF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCB has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than EDGF's 0.79% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCB vs. EDGF - Dividend Comparison

FLCB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.30%, more than EDGF's 3.45% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
EDGF 3EDGE Dynamic Fixed Income ETF	3.45%	3.61%	0.49%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLCB Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF	4.30%	4.19%	4.10%	3.40%	2.73%	2.28%	3.24%	0.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCB and EDGF in my portfolio?

FLCB and EDGF have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLCB or EDGF?

FLCB has higher volatility (1.27%) compared to EDGF (0.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCB dropped -18.82% vs EDGF's -1.62%.

Which ETF is better, FLCB or EDGF?

On 1-year performance, FLCB leads with 5.33% vs 3.51% for EDGF. On fees, FLCB is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, EDGF has been the lower-risk option at 0.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCB or EDGF?

Over the 1-year period, FLCB has performed better with a 5.33% return vs 3.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCB or EDGF?

FLCB is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for EDGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLCB or EDGF?

FLCB has the higher dividend yield at 4.30%, compared with 3.45% for EDGF.

What is the main difference between FLCB and EDGF?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and 3EDGE Asset Management. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FLCB and 0.79% for EDGF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EDGF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.81 vs 1.39), 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.