FLM vs. MLPA

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

FLM (First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF) and MLPA (Global X MLP ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLM is a Building & Construction fund tracking the ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while MLPA is a MLPs fund tracking the Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.23, they often move in opposite directions. FLM charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for MLPA.

Performance

FLM vs. MLPA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) and Global X MLP ETF (MLPA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FLM

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MLPA

• 1D: 1.35%
• 1M: 5.69%
• 6M: 13.90%
• YTD: 18.84%
• 1Y: 19.55%
• 3Y*: 16.97%
• 5Y*: 17.70%
• 10Y*: 6.12%

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

FLM vs. MLPA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	-4.55%
MLPA Global X MLP ETF	1.15%

Correlation

The correlation between FLM and MLPA 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2026	-0.23

FLM vs. MLPA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLM	MLPA
Industrials	37.1%	3.9%
Energy	8.1%	102.1%
Technology	7.9%	-
Basic Materials	7.4%	-
Real Estate	5.7%	-
Communication Services	0.7%	-
Utilities	0.7%	3.1%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-

Return for Risk

FLM vs. MLPA — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLM

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

MLPA

MLPA Risk / Return Rank: 54
MLPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
MLPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
MLPA Omega Ratio Rank: 52
MLPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
MLPA Martin Ratio Rank: 46

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.

FLM vs. MLPA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) and Global X MLP ETF (MLPA). 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.

	FLM	MLPA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.57	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.23	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.27	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.36	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	6.17	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	FLM	MLPA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-78.75%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-8.33%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.20%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.75%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-74.05%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-1.55%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-20.14%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	3.18%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FLM	MLPA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	5.09%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	9.52%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	12.54%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	17.99%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	27.40%	—

FLM vs. MLPA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than MLPA's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLM vs. MLPA - Dividend Comparison

FLM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MLPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.11%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MLPA Global X MLP ETF	7.11%	7.82%	7.25%	7.49%	7.30%	8.72%	13.84%	9.09%	10.00%	8.05%	7.15%	9.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLM and MLPA in my portfolio?

FLM and MLPA 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 ETF is better, FLM or MLPA?

On fees, FLM is cheaper at 0.70% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLM or MLPA?

FLM is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for MLPA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLM or MLPA?

MLPA has the higher dividend yield at 7.11%, compared with 0.00% for FLM.

What is the main difference between FLM and MLPA?

FLM is categorized as Building & Construction, while MLPA is MLPs. FLM tracks ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while MLPA tracks Solactive MLP Infrastructure Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FLM and 0.77% for MLPA.