FLJH vs. CVRT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) and CVRT (Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index, while CVRT is a Convertible Bonds fund actively managed by Calamos. FLJH is passively managed, while CVRT is actively managed. Over the past year, FLJH returned 46.83% vs 76.22% for CVRT. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FLJH charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CVRT.

Performance

FLJH vs. CVRT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) and Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF (CVRT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLJH achieves a 20.31% return, which is significantly lower than CVRT's 40.89% return.

FLJH

• 1D: 0.71%
• 1M: 8.59%
• YTD: 20.31%
• 6M: 18.71%
• 1Y: 46.83%
• 3Y*: 27.99%
• 5Y*: 20.80%
• 10Y*: —

CVRT

• 1D: -1.21%
• 1M: 8.71%
• YTD: 40.89%
• 6M: 41.79%
• 1Y: 76.22%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLJH vs. CVRT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	20.31%	25.26%	25.89%	7.98%
CVRT Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF	40.89%	29.37%	13.23%	11.02%

Correlation

The correlation between FLJH and CVRT is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 5, 2023	0.46

FLJH vs. CVRT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLJH	CVRT
Industrials	26.6%	8.9%
Technology	17.4%	43.9%
Financial Services	15.9%	8.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.8%	1.4%
Communication Services	7.1%	3.4%
Healthcare	5.9%	7.4%
Basic Materials	4.3%	2.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	0.8%
Real Estate	3.4%	2.7%
Utilities	1.3%	14.0%
Energy	1.0%	2.4%

Return for Risk

FLJH vs. CVRT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 80
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 79
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 83

CVRT

CVRT Risk / Return Rank: 93
CVRT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
CVRT Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
CVRT Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CVRT Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CVRT Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

FLJH vs. CVRT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) and Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF (CVRT). 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.

	FLJH	CVRT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.62	3.57	-0.95
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.61	4.32	-0.71
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.59	-0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.36	8.91	-4.55
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.09	34.91	-17.83
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLJH vs. CVRT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLJH Sharpe Ratio is 2.62, which is comparable to the CVRT Sharpe Ratio of 3.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLJH and CVRT, 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

	FLJH	CVRT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.62	3.57	-0.95
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.13	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.75	1.84	-1.10

Drawdowns

FLJH vs. CVRT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLJH drawdown since its inception was -31.51%, which is greater than CVRT's maximum drawdown of -20.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLJH and CVRT.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLJH	CVRT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.51%	-20.71%	-10.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.80%	-8.60%	-2.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.39%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.21%	+1.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.32%	-3.06%	-2.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.75%	2.19%	+0.56%

Volatility

FLJH vs. CVRT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) is 3.45%, while Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF (CVRT) has a volatility of 7.64%. This indicates that FLJH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CVRT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLJH	CVRT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.45%	7.64%	-4.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.38%	17.57%	-4.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.98%	21.47%	-3.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.51%	19.96%	-1.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.82%	19.96%	-0.14%

FLJH vs. CVRT - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLJH has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than CVRT's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLJH vs. CVRT - Dividend Comparison

FLJH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.24%, more than CVRT's 1.43% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CVRT Calamos Convertible Equity Alternative ETF	1.43%	1.68%	1.49%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	3.24%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLJH and CVRT in my portfolio?

FLJH and CVRT have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLJH or CVRT?

CVRT has higher volatility (7.64%) compared to FLJH (3.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLJH dropped -31.51% vs CVRT's -20.71%.

Which ETF is better, FLJH or CVRT?

On 1-year performance, CVRT leads with 76.22% vs 46.83% for FLJH. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 3.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLJH or CVRT?

Over the 1-year period, CVRT has performed better with a 76.22% return vs 46.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLJH or CVRT?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CVRT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLJH or CVRT?

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 3.24%, compared with 1.43% for CVRT.

What is the main difference between FLJH and CVRT?

FLJH is categorized as Japan Equities, while CVRT is Convertible Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Calamos. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for FLJH and 0.69% for CVRT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CVRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.57 vs 2.62), 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.