FLLA vs. ILF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

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 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLLA returned 7.74%/yr vs 9.00%/yr for ILF. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLLA charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.48%/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.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLLA achieves a 12.04% return, which is significantly lower than ILF's 13.05% return.

FLLA

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: -2.84%
• YTD: 12.04%
• 6M: 14.05%
• 1Y: 33.29%
• 3Y*: 11.39%
• 5Y*: 7.74%
• 10Y*: —

ILF

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: -1.45%
• YTD: 13.05%
• 6M: 14.29%
• 1Y: 40.46%
• 3Y*: 13.51%
• 5Y*: 9.00%
• 10Y*: 8.49%

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

FLLA vs. ILF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FLLA Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF	12.04%	51.81%	-26.89%	32.71%	7.78%	-8.93%	-15.08%	19.59%	-2.78%
ILF iShares Latin American 40 ETF	13.05%	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 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year 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 0.94 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLLA vs. ILF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLLA	ILF
Financial Services	24.4%	33.3%
Basic Materials	20.1%	24.0%
Energy	11.7%	12.0%
Consumer Defensive	11.4%	9.5%
Industrials	11.4%	9.3%
Utilities	9.0%	4.4%
Communication Services	3.9%	4.4%
Real Estate	3.1%	0.8%
Consumer Cyclical	2.9%	1.3%
Healthcare	1.6%	1.1%
Technology	0.4%	-

Return for Risk

FLLA vs. ILF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLLA

FLLA Risk / Return Rank: 45
FLLA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
FLLA Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
FLLA Omega Ratio Rank: 43
FLLA Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
FLLA Martin Ratio Rank: 44

ILF

ILF Risk / Return Rank: 54
ILF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
ILF Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
ILF Omega Ratio Rank: 51
ILF Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
ILF Martin Ratio Rank: 51

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.

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.

	FLLA	ILF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	1.83	-0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	2.44	-0.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.31	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.43	2.92	-0.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.98	8.56	-1.58

FLLA vs. ILF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLLA Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is comparable to the ILF Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. 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.

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLLA	ILF	Difference
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	-11.42%	-9.65%	-1.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.46%	-23.91%	+10.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.78%	4.74%	+0.04%

Volatility

FLLA vs. ILF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA) is 5.84%, while iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) has a volatility of 6.44%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	FLLA	ILF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.84%	6.44%	-0.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.85%	18.33%	-0.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.73%	22.25%	-0.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.86%	23.28%	-0.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.49%	28.40%	-0.91%

FLLA vs. ILF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLLA has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than ILF's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLLA vs. ILF - Dividend Comparison

FLLA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.46%, which matches ILF's 3.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLLA Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF	3.46%	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	3.47%	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

Can I hold both FLLA and ILF in my portfolio?

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.

Which is riskier, FLLA or ILF?

ILF has higher volatility (6.44%) compared to FLLA (5.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLLA dropped -53.88% vs ILF's -67.48%.

Which ETF is better, FLLA or ILF?

On 5-year performance, ILF leads with 9.00% vs 7.74% for FLLA. On fees, FLLA is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLLA has been the lower-risk option at 5.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLLA or ILF?

Over the 5-year period, ILF has performed better with a 9.00% return vs 7.74%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLLA or ILF?

FLLA is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for ILF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLLA or ILF?

ILF has the higher dividend yield at 3.47%, compared with 3.46% for FLLA.

What is the main difference between FLLA and ILF?

FLLA tracks FTSE Latin America RIC Capped Index, while ILF tracks S&P Latin America 40 Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for FLLA and 0.48% for ILF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 1.54), 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.