FLM vs. URTH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FLM (First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF) and URTH (iShares MSCI World ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLM is a Building & Construction fund tracking the ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while URTH is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI World Index (Net). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FLM returned 8.40%/yr vs 13.19%/yr for URTH. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLM charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for URTH.

Performance

FLM vs. URTH - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLM achieves a 19.89% return, which is significantly higher than URTH's 10.16% return. Over the past 10 years, FLM has underperformed URTH with an annualized return of 8.40%, while URTH has yielded a comparatively higher 13.19% annualized 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%

URTH

• 1D: -0.74%
• 1M: 4.65%
• YTD: 10.16%
• 6M: 10.88%
• 1Y: 26.06%
• 3Y*: 20.81%
• 5Y*: 11.86%
• 10Y*: 13.19%

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

FLM vs. URTH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	19.89%	13.99%	17.94%	19.36%	-9.87%	12.98%	0.51%	12.81%	-21.72%	22.95%
URTH iShares MSCI World ETF	10.16%	21.36%	18.66%	23.95%	-17.97%	22.27%	15.78%	28.15%	-8.56%	22.95%

Correlation

The correlation between FLM and URTH is 0.72, 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	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2012	0.66

The correlation between FLM and URTH shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (all time) to 0.82 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLM vs. URTH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLM	URTH
Industrials	37.1%	11.3%
Energy	8.1%	4.2%
Technology	7.9%	28.3%
Basic Materials	7.4%	3.3%
Real Estate	5.7%	1.9%
Communication Services	0.7%	9.3%
Utilities	0.7%	2.7%
Consumer Cyclical	-	9.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.2%
Financial Services	-	15.8%
Healthcare	-	8.8%

Return for Risk

FLM vs. URTH — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLM

FLM Risk / Return Rank: 68
FLM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FLM Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
FLM Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FLM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FLM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

URTH

URTH Risk / Return Rank: 63
URTH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
URTH Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
URTH Omega Ratio Rank: 63
URTH Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
URTH Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. URTH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) and iShares MSCI World ETF (URTH). 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	URTH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	2.17	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	3.02	-0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.39	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.01	2.89	+1.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.80	13.11	+0.69
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FLM vs. URTH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLM Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the URTH Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLM and URTH, 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

	FLM	URTH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	2.17	-0.03
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.64	0.74	-0.09
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.45	0.77	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	0.73	-0.34

Drawdowns

FLM vs. URTH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLM drawdown since its inception was -50.07%, which is greater than URTH's maximum drawdown of -34.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLM and URTH.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLM	URTH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.07%	-34.01%	-16.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.19%	-9.06%	+1.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.14%	-16.94%	-2.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.71%	-26.05%	+2.34%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-50.07%	-34.01%	-16.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.71%	-0.74%	+0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.84%	-4.37%	-6.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.08%	1.99%	+0.09%

Volatility

FLM vs. URTH - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) has a higher volatility of 4.27% compared to iShares MSCI World ETF (URTH) at 3.27%. This indicates that FLM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than URTH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLM	URTH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.27%	3.27%	+1.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.39%	9.42%	+0.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.45%	12.05%	+1.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.82%	16.19%	+0.63%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.73%	17.27%	+1.46%

FLM vs. URTH - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than URTH's 0.24% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLM vs. URTH - Dividend Comparison

FLM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, less than URTH's 1.35% 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%
URTH iShares MSCI World ETF	1.35%	1.48%	1.47%	1.70%	1.68%	1.50%	1.52%	2.16%	2.30%	1.88%	2.15%	2.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLM and URTH in my portfolio?

FLM and URTH have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLM or URTH?

FLM has higher volatility (4.27%) compared to URTH (3.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLM dropped -50.07% vs URTH's -34.01%.

Which ETF is better, FLM or URTH?

On 10-year performance, URTH leads with 13.19% vs 8.40% for FLM. On fees, URTH is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, URTH has been the lower-risk option at 3.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLM or URTH?

Over the 10-year period, URTH has performed better with a 13.19% return vs 8.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLM or URTH?

URTH is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FLM.

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

URTH has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 1.01% for FLM.

What is the main difference between FLM and URTH?

FLM is categorized as Building & Construction, while URTH is Global Equities. FLM tracks ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while URTH tracks MSCI World Index (Net). They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FLM and 0.24% for URTH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

URTH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 2.15), 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.