PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

Performance

FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L) and iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF (ICHN.AS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
FLXC.L
Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF
-5.86%32.15%19.36%-12.74%-22.72%-20.67%31.22%11.01%
ICHN.AS
iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF
-6.56%31.69%18.56%-11.72%-22.52%-22.05%29.63%10.95%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLXC.L achieves a -5.86% return, which is significantly higher than ICHN.AS's -6.56% return.


FLXC.L

1D
1.45%
1M
-4.13%
YTD
-5.86%
6M
-12.65%
1Y
7.15%
3Y*
7.43%
5Y*
-4.88%
10Y*

ICHN.AS

1D
2.15%
1M
-3.71%
YTD
-6.56%
6M
-13.57%
1Y
5.25%
3Y*
7.11%
5Y*
-5.22%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLXC.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than ICHN.AS's 0.40% expense ratio.


Return for Risk

FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLXC.L
FLXC.L Risk / Return Rank: 2121
Overall Rank
FLXC.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2020
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLXC.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLXC.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1919
Omega Ratio Rank
FLXC.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2525
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLXC.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2323
Martin Ratio Rank

ICHN.AS
ICHN.AS Risk / Return Rank: 2323
Overall Rank
ICHN.AS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1717
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ICHN.AS Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
ICHN.AS Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
ICHN.AS Calmar Ratio Rank: 3434
Calmar Ratio Rank
ICHN.AS Martin Ratio Rank: 2929
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.

FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L) and iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF (ICHN.AS). 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.


FLXC.LICHN.ASDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.33

0.23

+0.10

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.59

0.46

+0.13

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.08

1.06

+0.02

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.62

0.90

-0.28

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

1.69

2.50

-0.81

FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLXC.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.33, which is higher than the ICHN.AS Sharpe Ratio of 0.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLXC.L and ICHN.AS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.


Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


FLXC.LICHN.ASDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.33

0.23

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.15

-0.18

+0.03

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.09

0.06

+0.03

Correlation

The correlation between FLXC.L and ICHN.AS is 0.95, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.


Dividends

FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS - Dividend Comparison

Neither FLXC.L nor ICHN.AS has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLXC.L drawdown since its inception was -67.90%, which is greater than ICHN.AS's maximum drawdown of -62.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLXC.L and ICHN.AS.


Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators


FLXC.LICHN.ASDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-67.90%

-62.67%

-5.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.45%

-16.87%

+1.42%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-62.78%

-56.59%

-6.19%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-33.36%

-34.83%

+1.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-31.82%

-33.80%

+1.98%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.71%

6.08%

-0.37%

Volatility

FLXC.L vs. ICHN.AS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin FTSE China UCITS ETF (FLXC.L) is 6.08%, while iShares MSCI China UCITS ETF (ICHN.AS) has a volatility of 6.89%. This indicates that FLXC.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ICHN.AS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period


FLXC.LICHN.ASDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.08%

6.89%

-0.81%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.19%

14.21%

-1.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

21.66%

22.30%

-0.64%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

32.69%

28.91%

+3.78%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

30.83%

28.88%

+1.95%