FLLA vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLLA (Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLLA is a Latin America Equities fund tracking the FTSE Latin America 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, FLLA returned 35.32% vs 4.57% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. FLLA charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

FLLA vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA) 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, FLLA achieves a 12.62% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.70% return.

FLLA

• 1D: -2.69%
• 1M: -5.24%
• YTD: 12.62%
• 6M: 11.76%
• 1Y: 35.32%
• 3Y*: 14.00%
• 5Y*: 7.79%
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 2.70%
• 6M: 2.79%
• 1Y: 4.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FLLA vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FLLA Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF	12.62%	35.30%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.70%	2.91%

Correlation

The correlation between FLLA and RBIL is -0.24, 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	-0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2025	-0.15

Return for Risk

FLLA vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLLA

FLLA Risk / Return Rank: 50
FLLA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
FLLA Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
FLLA Omega Ratio Rank: 45
FLLA Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
FLLA Martin Ratio Rank: 51

RBIL

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

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. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	FLLA	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	5.01	-3.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	7.92	-5.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	2.39	-1.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.06	17.00	-13.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.72	70.66	-61.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLLA vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLLA Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLLA 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FLLA	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.66	5.01	-3.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.34	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	4.28	-4.04

Drawdowns

FLLA vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLLA drawdown since its inception was -53.88%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLLA and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLLA	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.88%	-0.50%	-53.38%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.59%	-0.27%	-11.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.76%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.32%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.96%	0.00%	-10.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.48%	-0.06%	-13.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.06%	0.07%	+3.99%

Volatility

FLLA vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA) has a higher volatility of 6.72% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.30%. This indicates that FLLA'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

	FLLA	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.72%	0.30%	+6.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.23%	0.79%	+17.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.33%	0.92%	+20.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.81%	1.05%	+21.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.54%	1.05%	+26.49%

FLLA vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLLA 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

FLLA vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

FLLA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.38%, more than RBIL's 4.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FLLA Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF	5.38%	6.06%	7.04%	5.45%	9.55%	7.60%	2.12%	3.18%	0.48%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.60%	3.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLLA and RBIL in my portfolio?

FLLA and RBIL have a correlation of -0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLLA or RBIL?

FLLA has higher volatility (6.72%) compared to RBIL (0.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLLA dropped -53.88% vs RBIL's -0.50%.

Which ETF is better, FLLA or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, FLLA leads with 35.32% vs 4.57% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLLA or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, FLLA has performed better with a 35.32% return vs 4.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLLA or RBIL?

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

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

FLLA has the higher dividend yield at 5.38%, compared with 4.60% for RBIL.

What is the main difference between FLLA and RBIL?

FLLA is categorized as Latin America Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. FLLA tracks FTSE Latin America 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 FLLA and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 1.66), 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.