FLM vs. PHDG
FLM (First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF) and PHDG (Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLM is a Building & Construction fund tracking the ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while PHDG is a Equity Hedged fund tracking the S&P 500 Dynamic VEQTOR Index. Both are passively managed. At a correlation of -0.31, they often move in opposite directions. FLM charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for PHDG.
Performance
FLM vs. PHDG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
FLM
- 1D
- -4.55%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PHDG
- 1D
- -0.68%
- 1M
- -2.55%
- YTD
- 9.81%
- 6M
- 8.89%
- 1Y
- 19.71%
- 3Y*
- 9.53%
- 5Y*
- 4.67%
- 10Y*
- 7.05%
FLM vs. PHDG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF | -4.55% |
PHDG Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF | -4.87% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLM and PHDG is -0.31, 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 | -0.31 |
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. PHDG — Risk / Return Rank
FLM
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
PHDG
FLM vs. PHDG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) and Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF (PHDG). 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 | PHDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.36 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.50 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 15.28 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FLM vs. PHDG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLM drawdown since its inception was -4.55%, smaller than the maximum PHDG drawdown of -17.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLM and PHDG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLM | PHDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.55% | -17.70% | +13.15% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -5.66% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -14.78% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -17.06% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -17.06% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.55% | -5.66% | +1.11% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.27% | -6.23% | +3.96% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.29% | — |
Volatility
FLM vs. PHDG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLM | PHDG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 7.76% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 9.60% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 51.02% | 11.39% | +39.63% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 51.02% | 11.41% | +39.61% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 51.02% | 12.11% | +38.91% |
FLM vs. PHDG - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than PHDG's 0.39% expense ratio.
Dividends
FLM vs. PHDG - Dividend Comparison
FLM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PHDG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.69%.
| 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% |
PHDG Invesco S&P 500 Downside Hedged ETF | 1.69% | 2.10% | 1.94% | 1.93% | 1.35% | 0.44% | 0.63% | 1.80% | 1.56% | 1.83% | 2.29% | 1.64% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLM and PHDG have a correlation of -0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, PHDG is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
PHDG is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FLM.
PHDG has the higher dividend yield at 1.69%, compared with 0.00% for FLM.
FLM is categorized as Building & Construction, while PHDG is Equity Hedged. FLM tracks ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while PHDG tracks S&P 500 Dynamic VEQTOR Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FLM and 0.39% for PHDG.
Find the right allocation for FLM and PHDG
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