FLCH vs. IBIC
FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FLCH returned -0.62% vs 3.98% for IBIC. Their -0.01 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.
Performance
FLCH vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -6.03% return, which is significantly lower than IBIC's 2.63% return.
FLCH
- 1D
- -0.05%
- 1M
- 6.52%
- 6M
- -6.64%
- YTD
- -6.03%
- 1Y
- -0.62%
- 3Y*
- 8.50%
- 5Y*
- -1.91%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 0.60%
IBIC
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- 0.18%
- 6M
- 2.33%
- YTD
- 2.63%
- 1Y
- 3.98%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 5.22%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.44M | $3.92M | $3.21M | |
| $985.11K | $822.88K | $536.84K |
FLCH vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF | -6.03% | 32.55% | 18.00% | -6.47% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 2.63% | 4.96% | 5.25% | 2.17% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLCH and IBIC is -0.13, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.13 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023 | -0.01 |
The correlation between FLCH and IBIC shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to -0.01 (all time), 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
FLCH vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank
FLCH
IBIC
FLCH vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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 | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -4.55 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -7.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | 2.07 | -1.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.03 | 14.92 | -14.95 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.06 | 50.81 | -50.87 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FLCH vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and IBIC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLCH | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.09% | -0.90% | -61.19% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -21.48% | -0.27% | -21.21% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.15% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -50.38% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -33.76% | -0.12% | -33.64% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.63% | -0.10% | -30.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.34% | 0.08% | +10.26% |
Volatility
FLCH vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison
Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) has a higher volatility of 5.36% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.23%. This indicates that FLCH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLCH | IBIC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.36% | 0.23% | +5.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.78% | 0.69% | +13.09% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.77% | 0.88% | +18.89% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.33% | 1.54% | +27.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.76% | 1.54% | +26.22% |
FLCH vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
FLCH vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison
FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.30%, less than IBIC's 4.62% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF | 2.30% | 2.36% | 2.87% | 3.47% | 2.69% | 1.48% | 0.91% | 1.98% | 1.92% | 0.01% |
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF | 4.62% | 4.43% | 4.65% | 0.83% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLCH and IBIC have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FLCH has higher volatility (5.36%) compared to IBIC (0.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs IBIC's -0.90%.
On 1-year performance, IBIC leads with 3.98% vs -0.62% for FLCH. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IBIC has performed better with a 3.98% return vs -0.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for FLCH.
IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 4.62%, compared with 2.30% for FLCH.
FLCH is categorized as China Equities, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while IBIC tracks ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.10% for IBIC.
IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.52 vs -0.03), 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 IBIC
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