FLJH vs. IBID

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) and IBID (iShares iBonds Oct 2027 Term TIPS 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 IBID is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2027 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FLJH returned 46.83% vs 4.83% for IBID. At a correlation of -0.14, they often move in opposite directions. FLJH charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBID.

Performance

FLJH vs. IBID - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) and iShares iBonds Oct 2027 Term TIPS ETF (IBID). 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 higher than IBID's 2.46% return.

FLJH

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

IBID

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.49%
• YTD: 2.46%
• 6M: 2.57%
• 1Y: 4.83%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLJH vs. IBID - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	20.31%	25.26%	25.89%	0.40%
IBID iShares iBonds Oct 2027 Term TIPS ETF	2.46%	5.66%	4.71%	2.61%

Correlation

The correlation between FLJH and IBID is -0.23, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2023	-0.14

Return for Risk

FLJH vs. IBID — 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

IBID

IBID Risk / Return Rank: 97
IBID Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
IBID Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
IBID Omega Ratio Rank: 97
IBID Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
IBID 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. IBID - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) and iShares iBonds Oct 2027 Term TIPS ETF (IBID). 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	IBID	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.62	3.91	-1.29
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.61	6.75	-3.14
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.94	-0.46
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.36	13.33	-8.97
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.09	39.52	-22.43
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. IBID - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLJH Sharpe Ratio is 2.62, which is lower than the IBID Sharpe Ratio of 3.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLJH and IBID, 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	IBID	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.62	3.91	-1.29
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	2.56	-1.81

Drawdowns

FLJH vs. IBID - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLJH drawdown since its inception was -31.51%, which is greater than IBID's maximum drawdown of -1.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLJH and IBID.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLJH	IBID	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.51%	-1.28%	-30.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.80%	-0.36%	-10.44%
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%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.32%	-0.22%	-5.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.75%	0.12%	+2.63%

Volatility

FLJH vs. IBID - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) has a higher volatility of 3.45% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2027 Term TIPS ETF (IBID) at 0.32%. This indicates that FLJH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBID based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLJH	IBID	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.45%	0.32%	+3.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.38%	0.80%	+12.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.98%	1.25%	+16.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.51%	2.25%	+16.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.82%	2.25%	+17.57%

FLJH vs. IBID - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLJH has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than IBID's 0.10% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FLJH vs. IBID - Dividend Comparison

FLJH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.24%, less than IBID's 3.66% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
IBID iShares iBonds Oct 2027 Term TIPS ETF	3.66%	4.43%	4.24%	0.81%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLJH and IBID in my portfolio?

FLJH and IBID have a correlation of -0.23, 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 IBID?

FLJH has higher volatility (3.45%) compared to IBID (0.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLJH dropped -31.51% vs IBID's -1.28%.

Which ETF is better, FLJH or IBID?

On 1-year performance, FLJH leads with 46.83% vs 4.83% for IBID. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, IBID has been the lower-risk option at 0.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLJH or IBID?

Over the 1-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 46.83% return vs 4.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLJH or IBID?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.10% for IBID.

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

IBID has the higher dividend yield at 3.66%, compared with 3.24% for FLJH.

What is the main difference between FLJH and IBID?

FLJH is categorized as Japan Equities, while IBID is Inflation-Protected Bonds. FLJH tracks FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index, while IBID tracks ICE 2027 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for FLJH and 0.10% for IBID.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBID currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.91 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.