FLCH vs. KLIP

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and KLIP (KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF) are both China Equities funds. FLCH is passively managed, while KLIP is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLCH returned 8.42%/yr vs 6.33%/yr for KLIP. Their correlation of 0.86 means they have usually moved in the same direction. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for KLIP.

Performance

FLCH vs. KLIP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF (KLIP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -6.24% return, which is significantly higher than KLIP's -6.77% return.

FLCH

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 8.56%
• 6M: -8.62%
• YTD: -6.24%
• 1Y: 1.51%
• 3Y*: 8.42%
• 5Y*: -2.36%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 0.58%

KLIP

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 6.88%
• 6M: -11.18%
• YTD: -6.77%
• 1Y: -3.11%
• 3Y*: 6.33%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.52%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	$3.65M	$4.23M	$3.21M
KLIP KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF	$647.66K	$581.47K	$1.00M

FLCH vs. KLIP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-6.24%	32.55%	18.00%	-21.09%
KLIP KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF	-6.77%	16.92%	3.37%	11.11%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and KLIP is 0.82, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 12, 2023	0.86

The correlation between FLCH and KLIP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLCH vs. KLIP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCH	KLIP
Consumer Cyclical	23.3%	34.2%
Financial Services	19.5%	2.0%
Communication Services	16.8%	45.8%
Technology	9.9%	4.2%
Industrials	8.0%	-
Healthcare	5.9%	6.0%
Basic Materials	5.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	4.0%
Energy	3.4%	-
Utilities	2.0%	-
Real Estate	1.6%	3.9%

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. KLIP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 12
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 12
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 12

KLIP

KLIP Risk / Return Rank: 8
KLIP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
KLIP Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
KLIP Omega Ratio Rank: 8
KLIP Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
KLIP Martin Ratio Rank: 9

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FLCH vs. KLIP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF (KLIP). 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	KLIP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.08	-0.19	+0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.25	-0.15	+0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.03	0.98	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.07	-0.15	+0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.15	-0.34	+0.49

FLCH vs. KLIP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is 0.08, which is higher than the KLIP Sharpe Ratio of -0.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and KLIP, 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. KLIP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, which is greater than KLIP's maximum drawdown of -21.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and KLIP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCH	KLIP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.09%	-21.48%	-40.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.48%	-21.48%	0.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.15%	-21.48%	-3.67%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.38%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.91%	-12.12%	-21.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.63%	-4.33%	-26.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.27%	9.22%	+1.05%

Volatility

FLCH vs. KLIP - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) has a higher volatility of 5.71% compared to KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF (KLIP) at 2.37%. This indicates that FLCH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KLIP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCH	KLIP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.71%	2.37%	+3.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.84%	12.99%	+0.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.87%	16.60%	+3.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.34%	17.98%	+11.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.77%	17.98%	+9.79%

FLCH vs. KLIP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than KLIP's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCH vs. KLIP - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.31%, less than KLIP's 27.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.31%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
KLIP KraneShares China Internet and Covered Call Strategy ETF	27.54%	25.14%	54.26%	61.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCH and KLIP in my portfolio?

FLCH and KLIP have a correlation of 0.82, 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 KLIP?

FLCH has higher volatility (5.71%) compared to KLIP (2.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs KLIP's -21.48%.

Which ETF is better, FLCH or KLIP?

On 3-year performance, FLCH leads with 8.42% vs 6.33% for KLIP. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, KLIP has been the lower-risk option at 2.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCH or KLIP?

Over the 3-year period, FLCH has performed better with a 8.42% return vs 6.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCH or KLIP?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for KLIP.

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

KLIP has the higher dividend yield at 27.54%, compared with 2.31% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between FLCH and KLIP?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and KraneShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.95% for KLIP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.08 vs -0.19), 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.