PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
IAU vs. FLJH
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

IAU vs. FLJH

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

IAU (iShares Gold Trust) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IAU is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IAU returned 17.23%/yr vs 20.54%/yr for FLJH. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. IAU charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

IAU vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IAU achieves a -2.44% return, which is significantly lower than FLJH's 18.85% return.

IAU

1D
0.08%
1M
-9.54%
YTD
-2.44%
6M
-2.22%
1Y
22.32%
3Y*
29.07%
5Y*
17.23%
10Y*
12.31%

FLJH

1D
0.82%
1M
1.43%
YTD
18.85%
6M
15.00%
1Y
45.89%
3Y*
25.97%
5Y*
20.54%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

IAU vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IAU
iShares Gold Trust		-2.44%63.95%26.85%12.84%-0.63%-4.00%25.03%17.98%-1.76%2.46%
FLJH
Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF		18.85%25.26%25.89%36.02%-2.75%12.68%10.65%20.34%-14.66%1.26%

Correlation

The correlation between IAU and FLJH is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.22

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

0.13

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

0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017

-0.02

The correlation between IAU and FLJH shifts across timeframes, from -0.02 (all time) to 0.22 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

IAU vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
IAU
FLJH

Real Estate

100.0%
3.4%

Basic Materials

-

4.3%

Communication Services

-

7.1%

Consumer Cyclical

-

12.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

4.2%

Energy

-

1.0%

Financial Services

-

15.9%

Healthcare

-

5.9%

Industrials

-

26.6%

Technology

-

17.4%

Utilities

-

1.3%

Real Estate

IAU
100.0%
FLJH
3.4%

Basic Materials

IAU

-

FLJH
4.3%

Communication Services

IAU

-

FLJH
7.1%

Consumer Cyclical

IAU

-

FLJH
12.8%

Consumer Defensive

IAU

-

FLJH
4.2%

Energy

IAU

-

FLJH
1.0%

Financial Services

IAU

-

FLJH
15.9%

Healthcare

IAU

-

FLJH
5.9%

Industrials

IAU

-

FLJH
26.6%

Technology

IAU

-

FLJH
17.4%

Utilities

IAU

-

FLJH
1.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Gold Trust

Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF

Often compared with IAU:
IAU vs. GLDIAU vs. GLDMIAU vs. IAUMIAU vs. SGOLIAU vs. GDXIAU vs. VOOIAU vs. PHYS
Often compared with FLJH:
FLJH vs. FLJPFLJH vs. EWJVFLJH vs. HEWJFLJH vs. DBJPFLJH vs. EWJFLJH vs. SCHDFLJH vs. OARK

Return for Risk

IAU vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
IAU
IAU Risk / Return Rank: 2626
Overall Rank
IAU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2828
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IAU Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
IAU Omega Ratio Rank: 3030
Omega Ratio Rank
IAU Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
IAU Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
FLJH
FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 8686
Overall Rank
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 8787
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.

IAU vs. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Gold Trust (IAU) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). 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.

IAUFLJHDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.89
2.46

-1.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.25
3.35

-2.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.19

1.45

-0.26

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.99

4.20

-3.21

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.83

16.28

-13.44

IAU vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IAU Sharpe Ratio is 0.89, which is lower than the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IAU and FLJH, 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...

Drawdowns

IAU vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IAU drawdown since its inception was -45.14%, which is greater than FLJH's maximum drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IAU and FLJH.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

IAUFLJHDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.14%

-31.51%

-13.63%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-24.40%

-10.80%

-13.60%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.40%

-20.39%

-4.01%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.40%

-20.39%

-4.01%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-24.40%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-22.03%

-1.30%

-20.73%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-15.97%

-5.30%

-10.67%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.47%

2.78%

+5.69%

Volatility

IAU vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

iShares Gold Trust (IAU) has a higher volatility of 7.70% compared to Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) at 5.20%. This indicates that IAU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

IAUFLJHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.70%

5.20%

+2.50%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.94%

14.09%

+9.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

27.17%

18.44%

+8.73%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.16%

18.61%

-0.45%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.02%

19.84%

-3.82%

IAU vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

IAU has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than FLJH's 0.09% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

IAU vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

IAU has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FLJH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.28%.

PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
FLJH
Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF		3.28%3.90%5.06%25.59%26.67%1.29%0.00%0.00%5.92%0.10%
IAU
iShares Gold Trust		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

IAU and FLJH have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

IAU has higher volatility (7.70%) compared to FLJH (5.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IAU dropped -45.14% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

On 5-year performance, FLJH leads with 20.54% vs 17.23% for IAU. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 5.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 20.54% return vs 17.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for IAU.

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 3.28%, compared with 0.00% for IAU.

IAU is categorized as Gold, while FLJH is Japan Equities. IAU tracks LBMA Gold Price, while FLJH tracks FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for IAU and 0.09% for FLJH.

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 0.89), 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 IAU and FLJH

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