FLCH vs. IPAC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and IPAC (iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while IPAC is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLCH returned -5.32%/yr vs 8.61%/yr for IPAC. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for IPAC.

Performance

FLCH vs. IPAC - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -10.49% return, which is significantly lower than IPAC's 16.23% return.

FLCH

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: -3.87%
• YTD: -10.49%
• 6M: -11.51%
• 1Y: 2.54%
• 3Y*: 9.67%
• 5Y*: -5.32%
• 10Y*: —

IPAC

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 3.91%
• YTD: 16.23%
• 6M: 16.46%
• 1Y: 33.01%
• 3Y*: 18.33%
• 5Y*: 8.61%
• 10Y*: 9.63%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLCH vs. IPAC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-10.49%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	-22.74%	-20.87%	30.09%	24.32%	-19.52%	1.51%
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	16.23%	25.16%	6.18%	14.51%	-13.68%	3.09%	12.39%	19.44%	-12.78%	2.89%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and IPAC is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.57

The correlation between FLCH and IPAC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLCH vs. IPAC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCH	IPAC
Consumer Cyclical	25.5%	9.8%
Technology	16.8%	17.0%
Industrials	15.5%	19.2%
Financial Services	14.4%	22.7%
Energy	12.6%	1.6%
Basic Materials	6.0%	8.7%
Communication Services	2.1%	4.7%
Healthcare	2.1%	5.0%
Utilities	2.0%	1.5%
Real Estate	1.6%	4.5%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	3.5%

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. IPAC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 10
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 10
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 10

IPAC

IPAC Risk / Return Rank: 60
IPAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IPAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IPAC Omega Ratio Rank: 62
IPAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
IPAC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

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. IPAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC). 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	IPAC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.13	1.96	-1.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.32	2.72	-2.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.36	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.14	2.89	-2.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.31	10.30	-10.00

FLCH vs. IPAC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is 0.13, which is lower than the IPAC Sharpe Ratio of 1.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and IPAC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FLCH vs. IPAC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, which is greater than IPAC's maximum drawdown of -30.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and IPAC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCH	IPAC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.09%	-30.99%	-31.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.29%	-11.49%	-6.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.43%	-15.45%	-9.98%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-55.78%	-29.64%	-26.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-30.99%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-36.90%	0.00%	-36.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.55%	-7.46%	-23.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.23%	3.21%	+5.02%

Volatility

FLCH vs. IPAC - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) have volatilities of 5.46% and 5.39%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCH	IPAC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.46%	5.39%	+0.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.98%	13.89%	+0.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.37%	16.99%	+2.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.63%	16.74%	+12.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.86%	16.61%	+11.25%

FLCH vs. IPAC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than IPAC's 0.09% 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. IPAC - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.73%, less than IPAC's 3.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	1.73%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	3.80%	4.32%	3.43%	3.16%	2.76%	4.03%	1.68%	3.37%	2.95%	2.98%	2.66%	2.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCH and IPAC in my portfolio?

FLCH and IPAC have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLCH or IPAC?

FLCH has higher volatility (5.46%) compared to IPAC (5.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs IPAC's -30.99%.

Which ETF is better, FLCH or IPAC?

On 5-year performance, IPAC leads with 8.61% vs -5.32% for FLCH. On fees, IPAC is cheaper at 0.09% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCH or IPAC?

Over the 5-year period, IPAC has performed better with a 8.61% return vs -5.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCH or IPAC?

IPAC is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for FLCH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLCH or IPAC?

IPAC has the higher dividend yield at 3.80%, compared with 1.73% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between FLCH and IPAC?

FLCH is categorized as China Equities, while IPAC is Asia Pacific Equities. FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while IPAC tracks MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.09% for IPAC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IPAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.96 vs 0.13), 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.