FLCH vs. CIBR
FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and CIBR (First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while CIBR is a Cybersecurity fund tracking the Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLCH returned -5.25%/yr vs 14.39%/yr for CIBR. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for CIBR.
Performance
FLCH vs. CIBR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -9.50% return, which is significantly lower than CIBR's 20.76% return.
FLCH
- 1D
- -0.60%
- 1M
- -8.03%
- YTD
- -9.50%
- 6M
- -11.21%
- 1Y
- 2.19%
- 3Y*
- 8.94%
- 5Y*
- -5.25%
- 10Y*
- —
CIBR
- 1D
- -0.66%
- 1M
- 14.35%
- YTD
- 20.76%
- 6M
- 15.03%
- 1Y
- 17.89%
- 3Y*
- 26.06%
- 5Y*
- 14.39%
- 10Y*
- 17.92%
FLCH vs. CIBR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF | -9.50% | 32.55% | 18.00% | -11.21% | -22.74% | -20.87% | 30.09% | 24.32% | -19.52% | 1.51% |
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF | 20.76% | 13.06% | 18.21% | 39.71% | -26.46% | 19.67% | 50.53% | 28.52% | 1.47% | 5.26% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLCH and CIBR is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017 | 0.41 |
The correlation between FLCH and CIBR shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (1 year) to 0.41 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
FLCH vs. CIBR - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
FLCH
CIBR
Consumer Cyclical
-
Financial Services
-
Communication Services
Technology
Industrials
Basic Materials
-
Healthcare
-
Energy
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Utilities
-
Real Estate
-
Consumer Cyclical
FLCH
CIBR
-
Financial Services
FLCH
CIBR
-
Communication Services
FLCH
CIBR
Technology
FLCH
CIBR
Industrials
FLCH
CIBR
Basic Materials
FLCH
CIBR
-
Healthcare
FLCH
CIBR
-
Energy
FLCH
CIBR
-
Consumer Defensive
FLCH
CIBR
-
Utilities
FLCH
CIBR
-
Real Estate
FLCH
CIBR
-
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
FLCH vs. CIBR — Risk / Return Rank
FLCH
CIBR
FLCH vs. CIBR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR). 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 | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.61 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.84 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | 1.14 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.13 | 0.82 | -0.69 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.29 | 1.93 | -1.64 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FLCH | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.11 | 0.72 | -0.61 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.18 | 0.58 | -0.76 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.76 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.00 | 0.64 | -0.63 |
Drawdowns
FLCH vs. CIBR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, which is greater than CIBR's maximum drawdown of -33.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and CIBR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLCH | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.09% | -33.89% | -28.20% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.14% | -21.99% | +4.85% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.43% | -21.99% | -3.44% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -55.78% | -33.89% | -21.89% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -33.89% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -36.20% | -8.68% | -27.52% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.54% | -8.66% | -21.88% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.58% | 9.29% | -1.71% |
Volatility
FLCH vs. CIBR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) is 6.46%, while First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF (CIBR) has a volatility of 12.00%. This indicates that FLCH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CIBR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLCH | CIBR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.46% | 12.00% | -5.54% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.88% | 21.42% | -7.54% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.31% | 24.97% | -5.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.61% | 25.02% | +4.59% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.91% | 23.64% | +4.27% |
FLCH vs. CIBR - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than CIBR's 0.60% expense ratio.
Dividends
FLCH vs. CIBR - Dividend Comparison
FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.61%, more than CIBR's 0.47% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIBR First Trust NASDAQ Cybersecurity ETF | 0.47% | 0.42% | 0.29% | 0.42% | 0.31% | 0.59% | 1.10% | 0.23% | 0.23% | 0.10% | 0.77% | 0.58% |
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF | 2.61% | 2.36% | 2.87% | 3.47% | 2.69% | 1.48% | 0.91% | 1.98% | 1.92% | 0.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLCH and CIBR 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.
CIBR has higher volatility (12.00%) compared to FLCH (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs CIBR's -33.89%.
On 5-year performance, CIBR leads with 14.39% vs -5.25% for FLCH. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 6.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CIBR has performed better with a 14.39% return vs -5.25%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for CIBR.
FLCH has the higher dividend yield at 2.61%, compared with 0.47% for CIBR.
FLCH is categorized as China Equities, while CIBR is Cybersecurity. FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while CIBR tracks Nasdaq CTA Cybersecurity Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.60% for CIBR.
CIBR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.72 vs 0.11), 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 FLCH and CIBR
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