PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FLCH vs. EZA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FLCH vs. EZA

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and EZA (iShares MSCI South Africa ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while EZA is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the MSCI South Africa Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLCH returned -5.07%/yr vs 9.50%/yr for EZA. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for EZA.

Performance

FLCH vs. EZA - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -8.28% return, which is significantly lower than EZA's -2.81% return.

FLCH

1D
0.83%
1M
-6.11%
YTD
-8.28%
6M
-9.10%
1Y
3.67%
3Y*
9.03%
5Y*
-5.07%
10Y*
—

EZA

1D
0.89%
1M
-5.12%
YTD
-2.81%
6M
2.77%
1Y
33.90%
3Y*
23.45%
5Y*
9.50%
10Y*
8.12%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLCH vs. EZA - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FLCH
Franklin FTSE China ETF		-8.28%32.55%18.00%-11.21%-22.74%-20.87%30.09%24.32%-19.52%1.51%
EZA
iShares MSCI South Africa ETF		-2.81%75.20%7.16%1.51%-5.18%7.91%-5.19%9.83%-25.24%18.17%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and EZA is 0.53, 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

0.53

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

0.56

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

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017

0.60

The correlation between FLCH and EZA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLCH vs. EZA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FLCH
EZA

Consumer Cyclical

23.4%
14.7%

Financial Services

18.2%
32.1%

Communication Services

14.2%
6.7%

Technology

12.9%

-

Industrials

9.1%
1.5%

Basic Materials

5.5%
39.7%

Healthcare

5.3%
1.2%

Energy

3.7%

-

Consumer Defensive

3.3%
2.4%

Utilities

2.0%

-

Real Estate

1.7%
1.6%

Consumer Cyclical

FLCH
23.4%
EZA
14.7%

Financial Services

FLCH
18.2%
EZA
32.1%

Communication Services

FLCH
14.2%
EZA
6.7%

Technology

FLCH
12.9%
EZA

-

Industrials

FLCH
9.1%
EZA
1.5%

Basic Materials

FLCH
5.5%
EZA
39.7%

Healthcare

FLCH
5.3%
EZA
1.2%

Energy

FLCH
3.7%
EZA

-

Consumer Defensive

FLCH
3.3%
EZA
2.4%

Utilities

FLCH
2.0%
EZA

-

Real Estate

FLCH
1.7%
EZA
1.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Franklin FTSE China ETF

iShares MSCI South Africa ETF

Often compared with FLCH:
FLCH vs. MCHIFLCH vs. CXSEFLCH vs. CNYAFLCH vs. KWEBFLCH vs. IPACFLCH vs. ASHXFLCH vs. VWO
Often compared with EZA:
EZA vs. AFKEZA vs. KSAEZA vs. SPYEZA vs. PAF.LEZA vs. VTIEZA vs. SCHDEZA vs. INDA

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. EZA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FLCH
FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 1111
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 1111
Martin Ratio Rank
EZA
EZA Risk / Return Rank: 2929
Overall Rank
EZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3030
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
EZA Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
EZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 3131
Calmar Ratio Rank
EZA Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
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.

FLCH vs. EZA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA). 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.

FLCHEZADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.10
0.95

-0.85

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.28
1.41

-1.12

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.03

1.18

-0.15

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.12

1.31

-1.19

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.25

3.41

-3.16

FLCH vs. EZA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is 0.10, which is lower than the EZA Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and EZA, 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

FLCH vs. EZA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, roughly equal to the maximum EZA drawdown of -64.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and EZA.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FLCHEZADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-62.09%

-64.64%

+2.55%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.14%

-23.31%

+6.17%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.43%

-23.31%

-2.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-55.78%

-34.94%

-20.84%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-62.25%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-35.34%

-18.05%

-17.29%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-30.53%

-16.92%

-13.61%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.87%

8.93%

-1.06%

Volatility

FLCH vs. EZA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) is 5.86%, while iShares MSCI South Africa ETF (EZA) has a volatility of 11.34%. This indicates that FLCH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EZA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FLCHEZADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.86%

11.34%

-5.48%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.73%

27.03%

-13.30%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.26%

31.92%

-12.66%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.60%

28.86%

+0.74%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.88%

31.43%

-3.55%

FLCH vs. EZA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than EZA's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCH vs. EZA - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.57%, less than EZA's 6.34% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EZA
iShares MSCI South Africa ETF		6.34%6.16%7.26%2.84%3.90%2.05%5.51%12.27%3.81%1.55%4.10%3.03%
FLCH
Franklin FTSE China ETF		2.57%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 EZA have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

EZA has higher volatility (11.34%) compared to FLCH (5.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs EZA's -64.64%.

On 5-year performance, EZA leads with 9.50% vs -5.07% for FLCH. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 5.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, EZA has performed better with a 9.50% return vs -5.07%. 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 0.59% for EZA.

EZA has the higher dividend yield at 6.34%, compared with 2.57% for FLCH.

FLCH is categorized as China Equities, while EZA is Emerging Markets Equities. FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while EZA tracks MSCI South Africa Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.59% for EZA.

EZA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.95 vs 0.10), 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 FLCH and EZA

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