FLCH vs. PBDC

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and PBDC (Putnam BDC Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while PBDC is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton. FLCH is passively managed, while PBDC is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLCH returned 8.42%/yr vs 5.49%/yr for PBDC. Their 0.24 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 13.49%/yr for PBDC.

Performance

FLCH vs. PBDC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and Putnam BDC Income ETF (PBDC). 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 PBDC's -6.86% 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%

PBDC

• 1D: 2.58%
• 1M: 1.53%
• 6M: -3.75%
• YTD: -6.86%
• 1Y: -10.01%
• 3Y*: 5.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.54%

*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
PBDC Putnam BDC Income ETF	$3.20M	$3.19M	$3.74M

FLCH vs. PBDC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-6.24%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	12.17%
PBDC Putnam BDC Income ETF	-6.86%	-1.77%	19.43%	30.52%	10.38%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and PBDC is 0.25, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.25
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2022	0.24

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. PBDC — 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

PBDC

PBDC Risk / Return Rank: 5
PBDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
PBDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
PBDC Omega Ratio Rank: 5
PBDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
PBDC Martin Ratio Rank: 5

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. PBDC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and Putnam BDC Income ETF (PBDC). 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	PBDC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.08	-0.53	+0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.25	-0.64	+0.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.03	0.93	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.07	-0.57	+0.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.15	-0.97	+1.12

FLCH vs. PBDC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is 0.08, which is higher than the PBDC Sharpe Ratio of -0.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and PBDC, 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. PBDC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, which is greater than PBDC's maximum drawdown of -20.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and PBDC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCH	PBDC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.09%	-20.47%	-41.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.48%	-17.71%	-3.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.15%	-20.47%	-4.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-50.38%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-33.91%	-14.56%	-19.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.63%	-5.17%	-25.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.27%	10.35%	-0.08%

Volatility

FLCH vs. PBDC - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) has a higher volatility of 5.71% compared to Putnam BDC Income ETF (PBDC) at 5.07%. This indicates that FLCH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PBDC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCH	PBDC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.71%	5.07%	+0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.84%	15.41%	-1.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.87%	19.06%	+0.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.34%	17.04%	+12.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.77%	17.04%	+10.73%

FLCH vs. PBDC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than PBDC's 13.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCH vs. PBDC - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.31%, less than PBDC's 11.29% 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%
PBDC Putnam BDC Income ETF	11.29%	10.53%	9.29%	9.86%	3.40%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCH and PBDC in my portfolio?

FLCH and PBDC have a correlation of 0.25, 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 PBDC?

FLCH has higher volatility (5.71%) compared to PBDC (5.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs PBDC's -20.47%.

Which ETF is better, FLCH or PBDC?

On 3-year performance, FLCH leads with 8.42% vs 5.49% for PBDC. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, PBDC has been the lower-risk option at 5.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCH or PBDC?

Over the 3-year period, FLCH has performed better with a 8.42% return vs 5.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCH or PBDC?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 13.49% for PBDC.

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

PBDC has the higher dividend yield at 11.29%, compared with 2.31% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between FLCH and PBDC?

FLCH is categorized as China Equities, while PBDC is Financials Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 13.49% for PBDC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.08 vs -0.53), 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.