PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FLM vs. ROBT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

FLM vs. ROBT - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLM achieves a 19.89% return, which is significantly higher than ROBT's 14.22% 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%

ROBT

1D
-1.73%
1M
13.18%
YTD
14.22%
6M
12.64%
1Y
30.71%
3Y*
10.10%
5Y*
2.38%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FLM vs. ROBT - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
FLM
First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF
19.89%13.99%17.94%19.36%-9.87%12.98%0.51%12.81%-20.43%
ROBT
First Trust Nasdaq Artificial Intelligence & Robotics ETF
14.22%15.16%-0.41%27.77%-34.94%9.91%46.18%34.28%-13.98%

Correlation

The correlation between FLM and ROBT is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.62

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.70

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 23, 2018

0.72

The correlation between FLM and ROBT shifts across timeframes, from 0.62 (1 year) to 0.73 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLM vs. ROBT - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
FLM
ROBT

Industrials

37.1%
20.4%

Energy

8.1%
1.5%

Technology

7.9%
57.0%

Basic Materials

7.4%

-

Real Estate

5.7%

-

Communication Services

0.7%
4.1%

Utilities

0.7%

-

Consumer Cyclical

-

6.6%

Consumer Defensive

-

1.4%

Financial Services

-

1.6%

Healthcare

-

7.4%

Industrials

FLM
37.1%
ROBT
20.4%

Energy

FLM
8.1%
ROBT
1.5%

Technology

FLM
7.9%
ROBT
57.0%

Basic Materials

FLM
7.4%
ROBT

-

Real Estate

FLM
5.7%
ROBT

-

Communication Services

FLM
0.7%
ROBT
4.1%

Utilities

FLM
0.7%
ROBT

-

Consumer Cyclical

FLM

-

ROBT
6.6%

Consumer Defensive

FLM

-

ROBT
1.4%

Financial Services

FLM

-

ROBT
1.6%

Healthcare

FLM

-

ROBT
7.4%

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. ROBT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLM
FLM Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
FLM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLM Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
FLM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLM Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

ROBT
ROBT Risk / Return Rank: 3232
Overall Rank
ROBT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3636
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ROBT Sortino Ratio Rank: 3535
Sortino Ratio Rank
ROBT Omega Ratio Rank: 3232
Omega Ratio Rank
ROBT Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
ROBT Martin Ratio Rank: 2828
Martin Ratio Rank
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. ROBT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) and First Trust Nasdaq Artificial Intelligence & Robotics ETF (ROBT). 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.


FLMROBTDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.82

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.05

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.22

+0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.01

1.42

+2.58

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.80

4.09

+9.71

FLM vs. ROBT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLM Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is higher than the ROBT Sharpe Ratio of 1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLM and ROBT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FLMROBTDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.15

1.32

+0.82

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.64

0.09

+0.55

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

0.35

+0.03

Drawdowns

FLM vs. ROBT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLM drawdown since its inception was -50.07%, which is greater than ROBT's maximum drawdown of -44.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLM and ROBT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


FLMROBTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-50.07%

-44.47%

-5.60%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.19%

-21.66%

+14.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.14%

-27.68%

+8.54%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.71%

-43.26%

+19.55%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-50.07%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.71%

-1.73%

+1.02%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.84%

-15.97%

+5.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.08%

7.53%

-5.45%

Volatility

FLM vs. ROBT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) is 4.27%, while First Trust Nasdaq Artificial Intelligence & Robotics ETF (ROBT) has a volatility of 6.46%. This indicates that FLM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ROBT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


FLMROBTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.27%

6.46%

-2.19%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.39%

17.51%

-7.12%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.45%

23.32%

-9.87%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.82%

25.18%

-8.36%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.73%

25.48%

-6.75%

FLM vs. ROBT - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than ROBT's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

FLM vs. ROBT - Dividend Comparison

FLM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, while ROBT has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
ROBT
First Trust Nasdaq Artificial Intelligence & Robotics ETF
0.00%0.00%0.68%0.23%0.35%0.06%0.17%0.42%0.44%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


FLM and ROBT have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ROBT has higher volatility (6.46%) compared to FLM (4.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLM dropped -50.07% vs ROBT's -44.47%.

On 5-year performance, FLM leads with 10.76% vs 2.38% for ROBT. On fees, ROBT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, FLM has been the lower-risk option at 4.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FLM has performed better with a 10.76% return vs 2.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

ROBT is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FLM.

FLM has the higher dividend yield at 1.01%, compared with 0.00% for ROBT.

FLM is categorized as Building & Construction, while ROBT is Technology Equities. FLM tracks ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while ROBT tracks Nasdaq CTA Artificial Intelligence and Robotics Index. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FLM and 0.65% for ROBT.

FLM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 1.32), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FLM and ROBT

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