ICLN vs. FLRK.L

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

ICLN (iShares Global Clean Energy ETF) and FLRK.L (Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ICLN is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while FLRK.L is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Korea NR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ICLN returned -0.21%/yr vs 19.06%/yr for FLRK.L. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ICLN charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLRK.L.

Performance

ICLN vs. FLRK.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF (FLRK.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

ICLN is traded in USD, while FLRK.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the FLRK.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ICLN achieves a 27.33% return, which is significantly lower than FLRK.L's 106.43% return.

ICLN

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: -4.39%
• YTD: 27.33%
• 6M: 27.01%
• 1Y: 60.81%
• 3Y*: 5.25%
• 5Y*: -0.21%
• 10Y*: 11.67%

FLRK.L

• 1D: 5.37%
• 1M: 6.42%
• YTD: 106.43%
• 6M: 123.51%
• 1Y: 206.67%
• 3Y*: 47.28%
• 5Y*: 19.06%
• 10Y*: —

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

ICLN vs. FLRK.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	27.33%	47.05%	-25.72%	-20.41%	-5.43%	-24.18%	141.82%	17.48%
FLRK.L Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF	106.43%	95.86%	-21.88%	20.18%	-27.99%	-6.76%	46.97%	-10.36%

Correlation

The correlation between ICLN and FLRK.L is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.40
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2019	0.42

ICLN vs. FLRK.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ICLN	FLRK.L
Utilities	32.8%	0.4%
Industrials	27.8%	17.7%
Energy	26.4%	0.9%
Technology	11.1%	57.4%
Basic Materials	1.1%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	0.1%	5.5%
Communication Services	-	2.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.7%
Financial Services	-	8.7%
Healthcare	-	3.0%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ICLN vs. FLRK.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ICLN

ICLN Risk / Return Rank: 75
ICLN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
ICLN Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
ICLN Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ICLN Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ICLN Martin Ratio Rank: 81

FLRK.L

FLRK.L Risk / Return Rank: 97
FLRK.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
FLRK.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
FLRK.L Omega Ratio Rank: 96
FLRK.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
FLRK.L Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

ICLN vs. FLRK.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) and Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF (FLRK.L). 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.

	ICLN	FLRK.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	5.06	-2.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.73	4.81	-2.08
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.70	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.73	9.04	-5.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.84	32.11	-18.27

ICLN vs. FLRK.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ICLN Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is lower than the FLRK.L Sharpe Ratio of 5.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ICLN and FLRK.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ICLN vs. FLRK.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ICLN drawdown since its inception was -87.15%, which is greater than FLRK.L's maximum drawdown of -49.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ICLN and FLRK.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ICLN	FLRK.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-87.15%	-49.35%	-37.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.38%	-22.71%	+6.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.18%	-34.32%	-8.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-57.16%	-48.15%	-9.01%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.75%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-43.03%	-7.79%	-35.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-66.56%	-22.05%	-44.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.41%	6.41%	-2.00%

Volatility

ICLN vs. FLRK.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Global Clean Energy ETF (ICLN) is 12.97%, while Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS ETF (FLRK.L) has a volatility of 18.16%. This indicates that ICLN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLRK.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ICLN	FLRK.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.97%	18.16%	-5.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.62%	36.39%	-13.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.21%	40.61%	-12.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.55%	31.52%	-3.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.32%	31.91%	-4.59%

ICLN vs. FLRK.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ICLN has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than FLRK.L's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

ICLN vs. FLRK.L - Dividend Comparison

ICLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, while FLRK.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLRK.L Franklin FTSE Korea UCITS 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%
ICLN iShares Global Clean Energy ETF	1.28%	1.63%	1.85%	1.59%	0.89%	1.18%	0.34%	1.36%	2.77%	2.49%	3.88%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ICLN and FLRK.L in my portfolio?

ICLN and FLRK.L have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ICLN or FLRK.L?

On fees, FLRK.L is cheaper at 0.09% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ICLN or FLRK.L?

FLRK.L is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for ICLN.

What is the main difference between ICLN and FLRK.L?

ICLN is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while FLRK.L is Asia Pacific Equities. ICLN tracks S&P Global Clean Energy Index, while FLRK.L tracks MSCI Korea NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ICLN and 0.09% for FLRK.L.