PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

FLCH vs. INRG.L

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and INRG.L (iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while INRG.L is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLCH returned -5.25%/yr vs -0.11%/yr for INRG.L. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for INRG.L.

Performance

FLCH vs. INRG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

FLCH is traded in USD, while INRG.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the INRG.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -9.50% return, which is significantly lower than INRG.L's 29.72% return.

FLCH

1D
-0.60%
1M
-8.03%
YTD
-9.50%
6M
-11.21%
1Y
2.19%
3Y*
8.94%
5Y*
-5.25%
10Y*
—

INRG.L

1D
-1.79%
1M
1.56%
YTD
29.72%
6M
28.51%
1Y
67.22%
3Y*
5.89%
5Y*
-0.11%
10Y*
11.07%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLCH vs. INRG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		29.72%44.28%-25.89%-19.97%-5.86%-24.60%141.91%44.08%-8.92%0.36%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and INRG.L is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.40

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

0.38

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

0.40

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2017

0.43

FLCH vs. INRG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FLCH
INRG.L

Consumer Cyclical

23.4%
0.1%

Financial Services

18.2%

-

Communication Services

14.2%

-

Technology

12.9%
11.4%

Industrials

9.1%
26.5%

Basic Materials

5.5%
1.2%

Healthcare

5.3%

-

Energy

3.7%
25.8%

Consumer Defensive

3.3%

-

Utilities

2.0%
33.6%

Real Estate

1.7%

-

Consumer Cyclical

FLCH
23.4%
INRG.L
0.1%

Financial Services

FLCH
18.2%
INRG.L

-

Communication Services

FLCH
14.2%
INRG.L

-

Technology

FLCH
12.9%
INRG.L
11.4%

Industrials

FLCH
9.1%
INRG.L
26.5%

Basic Materials

FLCH
5.5%
INRG.L
1.2%

Healthcare

FLCH
5.3%
INRG.L

-

Energy

FLCH
3.7%
INRG.L
25.8%

Consumer Defensive

FLCH
3.3%
INRG.L

-

Utilities

FLCH
2.0%
INRG.L
33.6%

Real Estate

FLCH
1.7%
INRG.L

-

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 Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)

Often compared with FLCH:
FLCH vs. MCHIFLCH vs. CXSEFLCH vs. CNYAFLCH vs. KWEBFLCH vs. IPACFLCH vs. ASHXFLCH vs. VWO
Often compared with INRG.L:
INRG.L vs. ICLNINRG.L vs. TANINRG.L vs. RENW.DEINRG.L vs. V3AB.LINRG.L vs. ACESINRG.L vs. RENG.LINRG.L vs. ESIH.L

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. INRG.L — 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
INRG.L
INRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
INRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
INRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
INRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
INRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
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. INRG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L). 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.

FLCHINRG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.11
2.61

-2.49

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
0.30
3.39

-3.09

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.04

1.40

-0.37

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.13

5.81

-5.68

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.29

17.13

-16.84

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. INRG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is 0.11, which is lower than the INRG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and INRG.L, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

FLCHINRG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.11

2.61

-2.49

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.18

-0.00

-0.17

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

—

0.42

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.00

-0.02

+0.02

Drawdowns

FLCH vs. INRG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, smaller than the maximum INRG.L drawdown of -93.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and INRG.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FLCHINRG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-62.09%

-93.70%

+31.61%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-17.14%

-11.52%

-5.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-25.43%

-44.14%

+18.71%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-55.78%

-57.52%

+1.74%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-67.67%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-36.20%

-73.12%

+36.92%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-30.54%

-81.16%

+50.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

7.58%

3.91%

+3.67%

Volatility

FLCH vs. INRG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) is 6.46%, while iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) has a volatility of 11.19%. This indicates that FLCH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than INRG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FLCHINRG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.46%

11.19%

-4.73%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.88%

19.26%

-5.38%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.31%

25.70%

-6.39%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

29.61%

26.83%

+2.78%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.91%

26.68%

+1.23%

FLCH vs. INRG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than INRG.L's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCH vs. INRG.L - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.61%, more than INRG.L's 0.87% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		0.87%1.34%1.24%0.80%0.51%0.74%0.48%1.60%2.81%2.83%2.73%2.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

FLCH and INRG.L have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for INRG.L.

FLCH is categorized as China Equities, while INRG.L is Energy Equities. FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while INRG.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.65% for INRG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FLCH and INRG.L

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