ILF vs. FLLA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ILF (iShares Latin American 40 ETF) and FLLA (Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF) are both Latin America Equities funds - ILF tracks the S&P Latin America 40 Index while FLLA tracks the FTSE Latin America RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ILF returned 8.24%/yr vs 7.11%/yr for FLLA. Their correlation of 0.94 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ILF charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLLA.

Performance

ILF vs. FLLA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) and Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ILF having a 11.49% return and FLLA slightly lower at 11.00%.

ILF

• 1D: -1.38%
• 1M: -2.81%
• YTD: 11.49%
• 6M: 10.99%
• 1Y: 38.85%
• 3Y*: 12.99%
• 5Y*: 8.24%
• 10Y*: 8.34%

FLLA

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: -3.75%
• YTD: 11.00%
• 6M: 11.02%
• 1Y: 32.83%
• 3Y*: 11.05%
• 5Y*: 7.11%
• 10Y*: —

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

ILF vs. FLLA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ILF iShares Latin American 40 ETF	11.49%	52.65%	-23.11%	33.14%	9.81%	-13.59%	-11.71%	13.77%	-5.32%
FLLA Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF	11.00%	51.81%	-26.89%	32.71%	7.78%	-8.93%	-15.08%	19.59%	-2.78%

Correlation

The correlation between ILF and FLLA is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2018	0.95

The correlation between ILF and FLLA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.94 to 0.97 - a consistent structural relationship.

ILF vs. FLLA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ILF	FLLA
Financial Services	33.3%	24.4%
Basic Materials	24.0%	20.1%
Energy	12.0%	11.7%
Consumer Defensive	9.5%	11.4%
Industrials	9.3%	11.4%
Utilities	4.4%	9.0%
Communication Services	4.4%	3.9%
Consumer Cyclical	1.3%	2.9%
Healthcare	1.1%	1.6%
Real Estate	0.8%	3.1%
Technology	-	0.4%

Return for Risk

ILF vs. FLLA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ILF

ILF Risk / Return Rank: 52
ILF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
ILF Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
ILF Omega Ratio Rank: 49
ILF Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
ILF Martin Ratio Rank: 50

FLLA

FLLA Risk / Return Rank: 45
FLLA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
FLLA Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
FLLA Omega Ratio Rank: 43
FLLA Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
FLLA Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

ILF vs. FLLA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) and Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA). 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.

	ILF	FLLA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	1.52	+0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.36	2.08	+0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.27	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.80	2.40	+0.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.13	6.79	+1.34

ILF vs. FLLA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ILF Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is comparable to the FLLA Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ILF and FLLA, 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

ILF vs. FLLA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ILF drawdown since its inception was -67.48%, which is greater than FLLA's maximum drawdown of -53.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILF and FLLA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ILF	FLLA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-67.48%	-53.88%	-13.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.94%	-13.75%	-0.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.97%	-27.76%	+3.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.71%	-28.32%	-1.39%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-57.79%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.90%	-12.25%	+1.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.91%	-13.46%	-10.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.79%	4.84%	-0.05%

Volatility

ILF vs. FLLA - Volatility Comparison

iShares Latin American 40 ETF (ILF) has a higher volatility of 6.53% compared to Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF (FLLA) at 5.89%. This indicates that ILF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLLA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ILF	FLLA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.53%	5.89%	+0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.37%	17.85%	+0.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.26%	21.71%	+0.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.29%	22.87%	+0.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	28.35%	27.49%	+0.86%

ILF vs. FLLA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ILF has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than FLLA's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

ILF vs. FLLA - Dividend Comparison

ILF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.52%, which matches FLLA's 3.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLLA Franklin FTSE Latin America ETF	3.49%	6.06%	7.04%	5.45%	9.55%	7.60%	2.12%	3.18%	0.48%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ILF iShares Latin American 40 ETF	3.52%	4.39%	7.44%	4.61%	12.72%	8.47%	1.88%	3.09%	3.12%	1.80%	1.59%	3.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ILF and FLLA in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, ILF and FLLA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, ILF or FLLA?

ILF has higher volatility (6.53%) compared to FLLA (5.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILF dropped -67.48% vs FLLA's -53.88%.

Which ETF is better, ILF or FLLA?

On 5-year performance, ILF leads with 8.24% vs 7.11% for FLLA. On fees, FLLA is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLLA has been the lower-risk option at 5.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ILF or FLLA?

Over the 5-year period, ILF has performed better with a 8.24% return vs 7.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ILF or FLLA?

FLLA is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for ILF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ILF or FLLA?

ILF has the higher dividend yield at 3.52%, compared with 3.49% for FLLA.

What is the main difference between ILF and FLLA?

ILF tracks S&P Latin America 40 Index, while FLLA tracks FTSE Latin America RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for ILF and 0.19% for FLLA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ILF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 1.52), 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.