FLCH vs. IMMR
FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) is China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while IMMR (Immersion Corporation) is a stock. Over the past 5 years, FLCH returned -5.25%/yr vs -3.62%/yr for IMMR. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
FLCH vs. IMMR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -9.50% return, which is significantly lower than IMMR's 0.39% return.
FLCH
- 1D
- -0.60%
- 1M
- -8.03%
- YTD
- -9.50%
- 6M
- -11.21%
- 1Y
- 2.19%
- 3Y*
- 8.94%
- 5Y*
- -5.25%
- 10Y*
- —
IMMR
- 1D
- 4.71%
- 1M
- -0.15%
- YTD
- 0.39%
- 6M
- -3.03%
- 1Y
- -10.21%
- 3Y*
- -2.01%
- 5Y*
- -3.62%
- 10Y*
- 1.41%
FLCH vs. IMMR - 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% | 0.91% |
IMMR Immersion Corporation | 0.39% | -18.30% | 26.47% | 3.43% | 23.12% | -49.42% | 51.95% | -17.08% | 26.91% | 3.37% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLCH and IMMR is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 |
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 7, 2017 | 0.33 |
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. IMMR — Risk / Return Rank
FLCH
IMMR
FLCH vs. IMMR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and Immersion Corporation (IMMR). 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 | IMMR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.41 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | 0.99 | +0.05 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.13 | -0.33 | +0.46 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.29 | -0.61 | +0.90 |
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 | IMMR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.11 | -0.26 | +0.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.18 | -0.08 | -0.10 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.03 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.00 | -0.04 | +0.05 |
Drawdowns
FLCH vs. IMMR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, smaller than the maximum IMMR drawdown of -98.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and IMMR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLCH | IMMR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.09% | -98.66% | +36.57% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -17.14% | -30.86% | +13.72% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -25.43% | -56.90% | +31.47% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -55.78% | -56.90% | +1.12% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -74.29% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -36.20% | -89.65% | +53.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.54% | -88.21% | +57.67% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.58% | 16.77% | -9.19% |
Volatility
FLCH vs. IMMR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) is 6.46%, while Immersion Corporation (IMMR) has a volatility of 12.61%. This indicates that FLCH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IMMR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLCH | IMMR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.46% | 12.61% | -6.15% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.88% | 27.21% | -13.33% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.31% | 39.79% | -20.48% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.61% | 45.83% | -16.22% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.91% | 51.32% | -23.41% |
Dividends
FLCH vs. IMMR - Dividend Comparison
FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.61%, less than IMMR's 3.60% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
IMMR Immersion Corporation | 3.60% | 5.59% | 2.06% | 3.12% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLCH and IMMR have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IMMR has higher volatility (12.61%) compared to FLCH (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs IMMR's -98.66%.
FLCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.11 vs -0.26), 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 IMMR
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