FLCH vs. QDTE

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and QDTE (Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while QDTE is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Roundhill. FLCH is passively managed, while QDTE is actively managed. Over the past year, FLCH returned 2.19% vs 34.41% for QDTE. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.97%/yr for QDTE.

Performance

FLCH vs. QDTE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -9.50% return, which is significantly lower than QDTE's 12.44% return.

FLCH

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

QDTE

• 1D: 1.85%
• 1M: 0.70%
• YTD: 12.44%
• 6M: 11.71%
• 1Y: 34.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLCH vs. QDTE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-9.50%	32.55%	22.74%
QDTE Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF	12.44%	19.32%	16.07%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and QDTE is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2024	0.36

FLCH vs. QDTE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCH	QDTE
Consumer Cyclical	23.4%	-
Financial Services	18.2%	5.4%
Communication Services	14.2%	-
Technology	12.9%	-
Industrials	9.1%	-
Basic Materials	5.5%	-
Healthcare	5.3%	-
Energy	3.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.3%	-
Utilities	2.0%	-
Real Estate	1.7%	-

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. QDTE — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 11
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 11
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 11

QDTE

QDTE Risk / Return Rank: 74
QDTE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
QDTE Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
QDTE Omega Ratio Rank: 74
QDTE Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
QDTE Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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. QDTE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTE). 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.

	FLCH	QDTE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.11	2.20	-2.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.30	2.77	-2.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.39	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.13	3.39	-3.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.29	13.52	-13.23
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. QDTE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is 0.11, which is lower than the QDTE Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and QDTE, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FLCH	QDTE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.11	2.20	-2.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.18	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.00	1.17	-1.17

Drawdowns

FLCH vs. QDTE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, which is greater than QDTE's maximum drawdown of -22.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and QDTE.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCH	QDTE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.09%	-22.86%	-39.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.14%	-10.20%	-6.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.43%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-55.78%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-36.20%	-3.70%	-32.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.54%	-3.14%	-27.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.58%	2.55%	+5.03%

Volatility

FLCH vs. QDTE - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF (QDTE) have volatilities of 6.46% and 6.57%, 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	QDTE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.46%	6.57%	-0.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.88%	12.26%	+1.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.31%	15.71%	+3.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.61%	18.72%	+10.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.91%	18.72%	+9.19%

FLCH vs. QDTE - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than QDTE's 0.97% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCH vs. QDTE - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.61%, less than QDTE's 44.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
QDTE Roundhill Innovation-100 0DTE Covered Call Strategy ETF	44.14%	49.49%	32.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLCH and QDTE in my portfolio?

FLCH and QDTE have a correlation of 0.45, 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 QDTE?

QDTE has higher volatility (6.57%) compared to FLCH (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs QDTE's -22.86%.

Which ETF is better, FLCH or QDTE?

On 1-year performance, QDTE leads with 34.41% vs 2.19% for FLCH. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 6.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCH or QDTE?

Over the 1-year period, QDTE has performed better with a 34.41% return vs 2.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCH or QDTE?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.97% for QDTE.

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

QDTE has the higher dividend yield at 44.14%, compared with 2.61% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between FLCH and QDTE?

FLCH is categorized as China Equities, while QDTE is Derivative Income. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Roundhill. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.97% for QDTE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

QDTE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 0.11), 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.