FLCH vs. ISVBF

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) are both China Equities funds - FLCH tracks the FTSE China RIC Capped Index while ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLCH returned -6.62%/yr vs -6.63%/yr for ISVBF. At a 0.35 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for ISVBF.

Performance

FLCH vs. ISVBF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -14.03% return, which is significantly higher than ISVBF's -14.80% return.

FLCH

• 1D: -1.54%
• 1M: -8.25%
• YTD: -14.03%
• 6M: -14.94%
• 1Y: -4.98%
• 3Y*: 8.15%
• 5Y*: -6.62%
• 10Y*: —

ISVBF

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: -9.22%
• YTD: -14.80%
• 6M: -14.96%
• 1Y: -6.39%
• 3Y*: 7.90%
• 5Y*: -6.63%
• 10Y*: —

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

FLCH vs. ISVBF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-14.03%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	-22.74%	-20.57%
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	-14.80%	30.64%	18.96%	-9.28%	-23.01%	-22.12%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and ISVBF is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021	0.35

Over the past year, FLCH and ISVBF have become more correlated (0.67) than their long-term average of 0.35, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. ISVBF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 7
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 7

ISVBF

ISVBF Risk / Return Rank: 7
ISVBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
ISVBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
ISVBF Omega Ratio Rank: 7
ISVBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
ISVBF Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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. ISVBF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF). 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	ISVBF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.26	-0.21	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.24	-0.08	-0.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	0.99	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.23	-0.28	+0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.59	-0.68	+0.10

FLCH vs. ISVBF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is -0.26, which is comparable to the ISVBF Sharpe Ratio of -0.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and ISVBF, 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. ISVBF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, which is greater than ISVBF's maximum drawdown of -53.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and ISVBF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCH	ISVBF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.09%	-53.78%	-8.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.29%	-22.63%	+1.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.43%	-23.77%	-1.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-55.78%	-52.51%	-3.27%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-39.40%	-30.95%	-8.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.56%	-32.68%	+2.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.52%	9.39%	-0.87%

Volatility

FLCH vs. ISVBF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) is 5.62%, while iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a volatility of 7.55%. This indicates that FLCH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISVBF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCH	ISVBF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.62%	7.55%	-1.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.09%	26.94%	-12.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.27%	30.86%	-11.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.63%	30.32%	-0.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.86%	30.14%	-2.28%

FLCH vs. ISVBF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than ISVBF's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCH vs. ISVBF - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, while ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	1.81%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCH and ISVBF in my portfolio?

FLCH and ISVBF have a correlation of 0.67, 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 ISVBF?

ISVBF has higher volatility (7.55%) compared to FLCH (5.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs ISVBF's -53.78%.

Which ETF is better, FLCH or ISVBF?

On 5-year performance, FLCH leads with -6.62% vs -6.63% for ISVBF. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 5.62%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCH or ISVBF?

Over the 5-year period, FLCH has performed better with a -6.62% return vs -6.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCH or ISVBF?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for ISVBF.

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

FLCH has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.

What is the main difference between FLCH and ISVBF?

FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.40% for ISVBF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ISVBF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.21 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.