FLCH vs. BUYZ

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and BUYZ (Franklin Disruptive Commerce ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while BUYZ is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton. FLCH is passively managed, while BUYZ is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLCH returned -4.82%/yr vs -7.32%/yr for BUYZ. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for BUYZ.

Performance

FLCH vs. BUYZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and Franklin Disruptive Commerce ETF (BUYZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -11.05% return, which is significantly higher than BUYZ's -13.11% return.

FLCH

• 1D: -2.50%
• 1M: -0.43%
• 6M: -14.23%
• YTD: -11.05%
• 1Y: -4.28%
• 3Y*: 8.54%
• 5Y*: -4.82%
• 10Y*: —

BUYZ

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: 4.60%
• 6M: -11.55%
• YTD: -13.11%
• 1Y: -15.00%
• 3Y*: 8.42%
• 5Y*: -7.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

FLCH vs. BUYZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-11.05%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	-22.74%	-20.87%	33.44%
BUYZ Franklin Disruptive Commerce ETF	-13.11%	8.70%	28.25%	39.13%	-49.81%	-19.38%	117.10%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and BUYZ is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2020	0.50

The correlation between FLCH and BUYZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.36 (3 years) to 0.50 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLCH vs. BUYZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCH	BUYZ
Consumer Cyclical	20.0%	33.9%
Financial Services	18.3%	6.7%
Communication Services	14.9%	17.0%
Technology	13.9%	27.0%
Industrials	11.1%	5.1%
Healthcare	5.7%	0.7%
Basic Materials	5.2%	-
Energy	3.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	5.4%
Utilities	1.8%	-
Real Estate	1.6%	2.8%

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. BUYZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 7
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 7

BUYZ

BUYZ Risk / Return Rank: 5
BUYZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
BUYZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
BUYZ Omega Ratio Rank: 4
BUYZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
BUYZ Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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.

FLCH vs. BUYZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and Franklin Disruptive Commerce ETF (BUYZ). 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.

	FLCH	BUYZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.22	-0.66	+0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.17	-0.78	+0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	0.90	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.20	-0.49	+0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.44	-0.88	+0.43

FLCH vs. BUYZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is -0.22, which is higher than the BUYZ Sharpe Ratio of -0.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and BUYZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FLCH vs. BUYZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, smaller than the maximum BUYZ drawdown of -68.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and BUYZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCH	BUYZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.09%	-68.04%	+5.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.48%	-30.85%	+9.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.43%	-30.85%	+5.42%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.45%	-63.21%	+10.76%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-37.30%	-43.92%	+6.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.61%	-38.85%	+8.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.71%	17.16%	-7.45%

Volatility

FLCH vs. BUYZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) is 6.18%, while Franklin Disruptive Commerce ETF (BUYZ) has a volatility of 6.84%. This indicates that FLCH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BUYZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCH	BUYZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.18%	6.84%	-0.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.90%	17.98%	-4.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.78%	22.83%	-3.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.60%	27.25%	+2.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.82%	29.80%	-1.98%

FLCH vs. BUYZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than BUYZ's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCH vs. BUYZ - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.43%, while BUYZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BUYZ Franklin Disruptive Commerce ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.07%	0.00%	0.00%	0.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.43%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCH and BUYZ in my portfolio?

FLCH and BUYZ have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLCH or BUYZ?

BUYZ has higher volatility (6.84%) compared to FLCH (6.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs BUYZ's -68.04%.

Which ETF is better, FLCH or BUYZ?

On 5-year performance, FLCH leads with -4.82% vs -7.32% for BUYZ. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 6.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCH or BUYZ?

Over the 5-year period, FLCH has performed better with a -4.82% return vs -7.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCH or BUYZ?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for BUYZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLCH or BUYZ?

FLCH has the higher dividend yield at 2.43%, compared with 0.00% for BUYZ.

What is the main difference between FLCH and BUYZ?

FLCH is categorized as China Equities, while BUYZ is Large Cap Growth Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.50% for BUYZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.22 vs -0.66), 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.