FLCH vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FLCH returned -0.05% vs 4.07% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. FLCH charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

FLCH vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLCH achieves a -12.17% return, which is significantly lower than RBIL's 2.32% return.

FLCH

• 1D: -1.88%
• 1M: -5.67%
• YTD: -12.17%
• 6M: -12.94%
• 1Y: -0.05%
• 3Y*: 8.98%
• 5Y*: -5.91%
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: -0.19%
• YTD: 2.32%
• 6M: 2.37%
• 1Y: 4.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLCH vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-12.17%	16.42%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.32%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCH and RBIL is -0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.13

Return for Risk

FLCH vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLCH

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

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.00	4.35	-4.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.13	6.69	-6.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	2.13	-1.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.00	7.82	-7.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.01	42.95	-42.96

FLCH vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCH Sharpe Ratio is -0.00, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCH and RBIL, 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. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCH drawdown since its inception was -62.09%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCH and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCH	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.09%	-0.52%	-61.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.59%	-0.52%	-19.07%
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	-38.09%	-0.50%	-37.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.55%	-0.07%	-30.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.32%	0.10%	+8.22%

Volatility

FLCH vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) has a higher volatility of 5.65% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that FLCH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLCH	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.65%	0.36%	+5.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.07%	0.85%	+13.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.43%	0.95%	+18.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.63%	1.07%	+28.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.86%	1.07%	+26.79%

FLCH vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% 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. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, less than RBIL's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	1.77%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%	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 RBIL in my portfolio?

FLCH and RBIL have a correlation of -0.10, 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 RBIL?

FLCH has higher volatility (5.65%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCH dropped -62.09% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, FLCH or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, RBIL leads with 4.07% vs -0.05% for FLCH. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCH or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, RBIL has performed better with a 4.07% return vs -0.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCH or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for FLCH.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 1.77% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between FLCH and RBIL?

FLCH is categorized as China Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLCH and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.35 vs -0.00), 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.