FLCH vs. CGRO

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and CGRO (CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF) are both China Equities funds. FLCH is passively managed, while CGRO is actively managed. Over the past year, FLCH returned 5.91% vs -12.15% for CGRO. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for CGRO.

Performance

FLCH vs. CGRO - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -6.60% return, which is significantly higher than CGRO's -15.64% return.

FLCH

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: -2.97%
• YTD: -6.60%
• 6M: -7.51%
• 1Y: 5.91%
• 3Y*: 10.54%
• 5Y*: -4.99%
• 10Y*: —

CGRO

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: -6.61%
• YTD: -15.64%
• 6M: -16.66%
• 1Y: -12.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLCH vs. CGRO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-6.60%	32.55%	18.00%	-2.88%
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	-15.64%	20.23%	14.75%	2.03%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and CGRO is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 18, 2023	0.92

The correlation between FLCH and CGRO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLCH vs. CGRO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCH	CGRO
Consumer Cyclical	23.4%	43.9%
Financial Services	18.2%	3.3%
Communication Services	14.2%	13.3%
Technology	12.9%	14.8%
Industrials	9.1%	15.6%
Basic Materials	5.5%	-
Healthcare	5.3%	5.7%
Energy	3.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	2.3%
Utilities	2.0%	-
Real Estate	1.7%	1.1%

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. CGRO — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 14
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 14
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 13

CGRO

CGRO Risk / Return Rank: 5
CGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
CGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
CGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
CGRO 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. CGRO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO). 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.

	FLCH	CGRO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.31	-0.55	+0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.57	-0.66	+1.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	0.93	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	-0.44	+0.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.80	-0.83	+1.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLCH vs. CGRO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is 0.31, which is higher than the CGRO Sharpe Ratio of -0.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and CGRO, 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

	FLCH	CGRO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31	-0.55	+0.86
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.17	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.02	0.23	-0.22

Drawdowns

FLCH vs. CGRO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, which is greater than CGRO's maximum drawdown of -27.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and CGRO.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCH	CGRO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.09%	-27.90%	-34.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.52%	-27.90%	+12.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.43%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-55.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-34.16%	-27.90%	-6.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.53%	-10.25%	-20.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.43%	14.67%	-7.24%

Volatility

FLCH vs. CGRO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) is 6.59%, while CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF (CGRO) has a volatility of 7.68%. This indicates that FLCH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CGRO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCH	CGRO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.59%	7.68%	-1.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.67%	15.54%	-1.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.20%	22.47%	-3.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.59%	28.97%	+0.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.91%	28.97%	-1.06%

FLCH vs. CGRO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than CGRO's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCH vs. CGRO - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.53%, less than CGRO's 3.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CGRO CoreValues Alpha Greater China Growth ETF	3.32%	2.48%	2.47%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.53%	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 CGRO in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, FLCH and CGRO move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, FLCH or CGRO?

CGRO has higher volatility (7.68%) compared to FLCH (6.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs CGRO's -27.90%.

Which ETF is better, FLCH or CGRO?

On 1-year performance, FLCH leads with 5.91% vs -12.15% for CGRO. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 6.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCH or CGRO?

Over the 1-year period, FLCH has performed better with a 5.91% return vs -12.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCH or CGRO?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for CGRO.

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

CGRO has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 2.53% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between FLCH and CGRO?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and CoreValues Alpha. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.75% for CGRO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.31 vs -0.55), 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.