PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FLLA vs. ILF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FLLA vs. ILF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

FLLA (Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF) and ILF (iShares Latin American 40 ETF) are both Latin America Equities funds - FLLA tracks the FTSE Latin America RIC Capped Index while ILF tracks the S&P Latin America 40 (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLLA returned 9.94%/yr vs 11.24%/yr for ILF. Their correlation of 0.95 means they have usually moved in the same direction. FLLA charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for ILF.

Performance

FLLA vs. ILF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA) and iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLLA achieves a 16.42% return, which is significantly lower than ILF's 17.64% return.

FLLA

1D
0.04%
1M
4.57%
6M
1.61%
YTD
16.42%
1Y
41.47%
3Y*
11.67%
5Y*
9.94%
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
6.72%

ILF

1D
-0.03%
1M
4.99%
6M
1.31%
YTD
17.64%
1Y
48.11%
3Y*
14.00%
5Y*
11.24%
10Y*
7.78%
ALL TIME*
9.53%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

FLLA

Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF
$649.19K$662.69K$1.07M

ILF

iShares Latin American 40 ETF
$79.35M$71.98M$85.23M

FLLA vs. ILF - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
FLLA
Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF		16.42%51.81%-26.89%32.71%7.78%-8.93%-15.08%19.59%-2.78%
ILF
iShares Latin American 40 ETF		17.64%52.65%-23.11%33.14%9.81%-13.59%-11.71%13.77%-5.32%

Correlation

The correlation between FLLA and ILF is 0.96 - they have historically moved very closely together. At this level, their price movements offset little of one another.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.96

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.96

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.97

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2018

0.95

The correlation between FLLA and ILF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLLA vs. ILF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
FLLA
ILF

Financial Services

27.1%
34.5%

Basic Materials

18.1%
22.0%

Energy

11.3%
10.6%

Consumer Defensive

11.2%
9.6%

Utilities

9.8%
4.7%

Industrials

9.6%
9.6%

Communication Services

3.9%
6.0%

Real Estate

3.0%
0.8%

Consumer Cyclical

2.8%
1.3%

Healthcare

0.8%
1.1%

Technology

0.4%

-

Financial Services

FLLA
27.1%
ILF
34.5%

Basic Materials

FLLA
18.1%
ILF
22.0%

Energy

FLLA
11.3%
ILF
10.6%

Consumer Defensive

FLLA
11.2%
ILF
9.6%

Utilities

FLLA
9.8%
ILF
4.7%

Industrials

FLLA
9.6%
ILF
9.6%

Communication Services

FLLA
3.9%
ILF
6.0%

Real Estate

FLLA
3.0%
ILF
0.8%

Consumer Cyclical

FLLA
2.8%
ILF
1.3%

Healthcare

FLLA
0.8%
ILF
1.1%

Technology

FLLA
0.4%
ILF

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF

iShares Latin American 40 ETF

Often compared with FLLA:
FLLA vs. FLBRFLLA vs. ASEAFLLA vs. USDUFLLA vs. FTGCFLLA vs. EMCRFLLA vs. FLNFLLA vs. FLIN
Often compared with ILF:
ILF vs. EWZILF vs. EWWILF vs. FLNILF vs. FLBRILF vs. EPUILF vs. VOOILF vs. VOOG

Return for Risk

FLLA vs. ILF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
FLLA
FLLA Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
FLLA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLLA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7979
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLLA Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
FLLA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLLA Martin Ratio Rank: 6262
Martin Ratio Rank
ILF
ILF Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
ILF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ILF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
ILF Omega Ratio Rank: 8484
Omega Ratio Rank
ILF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8787
Calmar Ratio Rank
ILF Martin Ratio Rank: 7272
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

FLLA vs. ILF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA) and iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF). 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.

FLLAILFDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.94
2.13

-0.19

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.56
2.78

-0.21

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.33

1.36

-0.02

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.04

3.42

-0.38

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.38

8.81

-1.43

FLLA vs. ILF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLLA Sharpe Ratio is 1.94, which is comparable to the ILF Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLLA and ILF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

FLLA vs. ILF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLLA drawdown since its inception was -53.88%, smaller than the maximum ILF drawdown of -67.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLLA and ILF.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FLLAILFDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.88%

-67.48%

+13.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.75%

-13.94%

+0.19%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-27.76%

-23.97%

-3.79%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-28.32%

-29.71%

+1.39%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-57.79%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.96%

-5.98%

-1.98%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-13.42%

-23.84%

+10.42%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.66%

5.40%

+0.26%

Volatility

FLLA vs. ILF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA) is 4.91%, while iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) has a volatility of 6.14%. This indicates that FLLA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ILF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FLLAILFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.91%

6.14%

-1.23%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

17.61%

18.40%

-0.79%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.63%

22.44%

-0.81%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.66%

23.10%

-0.44%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

27.36%

28.26%

-0.90%

FLLA vs. ILF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLLA has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than ILF's 0.47% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLLA vs. ILF - Dividend Comparison

FLLA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.71%, more than ILF's 3.34% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FLLA
Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF		4.71%6.06%7.04%5.45%9.55%7.60%2.12%3.18%0.48%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ILF
iShares Latin American 40 ETF		3.34%4.39%7.44%4.61%12.72%8.47%1.88%3.09%3.12%1.80%1.59%3.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

With a correlation of 0.96, FLLA and ILF move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

ILF has higher volatility (6.14%) compared to FLLA (4.91%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLLA dropped -53.88% vs ILF's -67.48%.

On 5-year performance, ILF leads with 11.24% vs 9.94% for FLLA. On fees, FLLA is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLLA has been the lower-risk option at 4.91%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, ILF has performed better with a 11.24% return vs 9.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLLA is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.47% for ILF.

FLLA has the higher dividend yield at 4.71%, compared with 3.34% for ILF.

FLLA tracks FTSE Latin America RIC Capped Index, while ILF tracks S&P Latin America 40 (Net). They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLLA and 0.47% for ILF.

ILF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.94), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FLLA and ILF

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer