FLM vs. NLSI
FLM (First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF) and NLSI (Neos Long/Short Equity Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLM is a Building & Construction fund tracking the ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while NLSI is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Neos. FLM is passively managed, while NLSI is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. FLM charges 0.70%/yr vs 2.89%/yr for NLSI.
Performance
FLM vs. NLSI - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FLM achieves a 19.89% return, which is significantly higher than NLSI's 7.01% return.
FLM
- 1D
- -0.36%
- 1M
- 0.95%
- YTD
- 19.89%
- 6M
- 18.51%
- 1Y
- 28.68%
- 3Y*
- 22.72%
- 5Y*
- 10.76%
- 10Y*
- 8.40%
NLSI
- 1D
- -0.92%
- 1M
- 10.92%
- YTD
- 7.01%
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FLM vs. NLSI - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF | 19.89% | -1.46% |
NLSI Neos Long/Short Equity Income ETF | 7.01% | 1.90% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLM and NLSI is -0.15, 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 Dec 11, 2025 | -0.15 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
FLM vs. NLSI — Risk / Return Rank
FLM
NLSI
FLM vs. NLSI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) and Neos Long/Short Equity Income ETF (NLSI). 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.
| FLM | NLSI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.37 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.01 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.80 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| FLM | NLSI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.15 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.64 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.45 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.38 | 1.04 | -0.66 |
Drawdowns
FLM vs. NLSI - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLM drawdown since its inception was -50.07%, which is greater than NLSI's maximum drawdown of -13.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLM and NLSI.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLM | NLSI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -50.07% | -13.82% | -36.25% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.19% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.14% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.71% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -50.07% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.71% | -1.33% | +0.62% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -10.84% | -6.10% | -4.74% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.08% | — | — |
Volatility
FLM vs. NLSI - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLM | NLSI | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.27% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.39% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.45% | 19.37% | -5.92% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.82% | 19.37% | -2.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.73% | 19.37% | -0.64% |
FLM vs. NLSI - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than NLSI's 2.89% expense ratio.
Dividends
FLM vs. NLSI - Dividend Comparison
FLM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, less than NLSI's 2.42% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF | 1.01% | 1.19% | 1.31% | 1.16% | 2.10% | 1.45% | 2.88% | 1.84% | 1.74% | 1.49% | 2.01% | 1.17% |
NLSI Neos Long/Short Equity Income ETF | 2.42% | 0.46% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLM and NLSI have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
FLM is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 2.89% for NLSI.
NLSI has the higher dividend yield at 2.42%, compared with 1.01% for FLM.
FLM is categorized as Building & Construction, while NLSI is Long-Short. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FLM and 2.89% for NLSI.
Find the right allocation for FLM and NLSI
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