PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FLCB vs. FTGC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FLCB vs. FTGC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF (FLCB) and First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund (FTGC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCB achieves a 0.50% return, which is significantly lower than FTGC's 18.86% return.


FLCB

1D
0.09%
1M
0.68%
YTD
0.50%
6M
0.64%
1Y
4.34%
3Y*
4.00%
5Y*
-0.05%
10Y*

FTGC

1D
-1.14%
1M
-7.37%
YTD
18.86%
6M
17.54%
1Y
28.18%
3Y*
14.26%
5Y*
12.29%
10Y*
7.15%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLCB vs. FTGC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
FLCB
Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF
0.50%6.95%1.59%5.72%-13.54%-1.73%7.66%0.65%
FTGC
First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund
18.86%14.61%9.96%-5.36%17.36%27.95%2.17%3.62%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCB and FTGC is -0.24, 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

-0.24

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.07

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 19, 2019

-0.06

The correlation between FLCB and FTGC shifts across timeframes, from -0.24 (1 year) to -0.05 (5 years), 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

FLCB vs. FTGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCB
FLCB Risk / Return Rank: 3333
Overall Rank
FLCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3434
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLCB Omega Ratio Rank: 3131
Omega Ratio Rank
FLCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 3333
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLCB Martin Ratio Rank: 3232
Martin Ratio Rank

FTGC
FTGC Risk / Return Rank: 5555
Overall Rank
FTGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FTGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
FTGC Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
FTGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
FTGC Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank
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. FTGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF (FLCB) and First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund (FTGC). 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.


FLCBFTGCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.67

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.32

-0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.53

2.60

-1.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.38

9.67

-5.28

FLCB vs. FTGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCB Sharpe Ratio is 1.15, which is lower than the FTGC Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCB and FTGC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

FLCB vs. FTGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCB drawdown since its inception was -18.82%, smaller than the maximum FTGC drawdown of -59.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCB and FTGC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FLCBFTGCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-18.82%

-59.47%

+40.65%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.85%

-10.87%

+8.02%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-6.16%

-10.87%

+4.71%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.48%

-22.64%

+4.16%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.13%

-10.87%

+8.74%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.59%

-27.34%

+20.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.99%

2.94%

-1.95%

Volatility

FLCB vs. FTGC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF (FLCB) is 1.01%, while First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund (FTGC) has a volatility of 3.07%. This indicates that FLCB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FTGC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FLCBFTGCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.01%

3.07%

-2.06%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.81%

13.21%

-10.40%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.80%

15.70%

-11.90%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.75%

15.87%

-10.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.49%

14.71%

-9.22%

FLCB vs. FTGC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCB has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than FTGC's 0.95% expense ratio.


Dividends

FLCB vs. FTGC - Dividend Comparison

FLCB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.29%, less than FTGC's 16.13% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
FLCB
Franklin U.S. Core Bond ETF
4.29%4.19%4.10%3.40%2.73%2.28%3.24%0.73%0.00%0.00%
FTGC
First Trust Global Tactical Commodity Strategy Fund
16.13%17.74%3.05%3.34%10.35%7.21%0.00%0.81%0.80%1.21%

Frequently Asked Questions


FLCB and FTGC have a correlation of -0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FTGC has higher volatility (3.07%) compared to FLCB (1.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCB dropped -18.82% vs FTGC's -59.47%.

On 5-year performance, FTGC leads with 12.29% vs -0.05% for FLCB. On fees, FLCB is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FLCB has been the lower-risk option at 1.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FTGC has performed better with a 12.29% return vs -0.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLCB is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FTGC.

FTGC has the higher dividend yield at 16.13%, compared with 4.29% for FLCB.

FLCB is categorized as Intermediate Core Bond, while FTGC is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FLCB and 0.95% for FTGC.

FTGC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.82 vs 1.15), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FLCB and FTGC

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