PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
INRG.L vs. FLCH
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

INRG.L vs. FLCH

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

INRG.L (iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - INRG.L is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, INRG.L returned 1.03%/yr vs -4.18%/yr for FLCH. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. INRG.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

INRG.L vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) and Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

INRG.L is traded in GBp, while FLCH is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the FLCH values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INRG.L achieves a 30.88% return, which is significantly higher than FLCH's -8.61% return.

INRG.L

1D
-1.85%
1M
3.78%
YTD
30.88%
6M
28.36%
1Y
69.58%
3Y*
3.84%
5Y*
1.03%
10Y*
11.81%

FLCH

1D
-0.63%
1M
-6.04%
YTD
-8.61%
6M
-11.35%
1Y
3.59%
3Y*
6.81%
5Y*
-4.18%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

INRG.L vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		30.88%34.16%-24.63%-23.98%5.40%-23.91%134.72%38.52%-3.45%-2.12%
FLCH
Franklin FTSE China ETF		-8.61%23.11%20.06%-15.65%-13.56%-20.12%26.27%19.59%-14.75%-1.63%

Correlation

The correlation between INRG.L and FLCH is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

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

0.32

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

0.29

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

0.31

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 7, 2017

0.37

INRG.L vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
INRG.L
FLCH

Utilities

33.6%
2.0%

Industrials

26.5%
9.1%

Energy

25.8%
3.7%

Technology

11.4%
12.9%

Basic Materials

1.2%
5.5%

Consumer Cyclical

0.1%
23.4%

Communication Services

-

14.2%

Consumer Defensive

-

3.3%

Financial Services

-

18.2%

Healthcare

-

5.3%

Real Estate

-

1.7%

Utilities

INRG.L
33.6%
FLCH
2.0%

Industrials

INRG.L
26.5%
FLCH
9.1%

Energy

INRG.L
25.8%
FLCH
3.7%

Technology

INRG.L
11.4%
FLCH
12.9%

Basic Materials

INRG.L
1.2%
FLCH
5.5%

Consumer Cyclical

INRG.L
0.1%
FLCH
23.4%

Communication Services

INRG.L

-

FLCH
14.2%

Consumer Defensive

INRG.L

-

FLCH
3.3%

Financial Services

INRG.L

-

FLCH
18.2%

Healthcare

INRG.L

-

FLCH
5.3%

Real Estate

INRG.L

-

FLCH
1.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)

Franklin FTSE China ETF

Often compared with INRG.L:
INRG.L vs. ICLNINRG.L vs. TANINRG.L vs. RENW.DEINRG.L vs. V3AB.LINRG.L vs. ACESINRG.L vs. RENG.LINRG.L vs. ESIH.L
Often compared with FLCH:
FLCH vs. MCHIFLCH vs. CXSEFLCH vs. CNYAFLCH vs. KWEBFLCH vs. IPACFLCH vs. ASHXFLCH vs. VWO

Return for Risk

INRG.L vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
INRG.L
INRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
INRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
INRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8888
Sortino Ratio Rank
INRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
INRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
INRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank
FLCH
FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 1111
Overall Rank
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 1111
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 1111
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.

INRG.L vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) and Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH). 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.

INRG.LFLCHDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.82
0.20

+2.62

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.68
0.41

+3.27

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.44

1.05

+0.39

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.49

0.22

+5.27

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.14

0.48

+15.66

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

INRG.L vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INRG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.82, which is higher than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of 0.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INRG.L and FLCH, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

INRG.LFLCHDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.82

0.20

+2.62

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.04

-0.15

+0.19

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

—

—

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.00

-0.00

0.00

Drawdowns

INRG.L vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INRG.L drawdown since its inception was -92.06%, which is greater than FLCH's maximum drawdown of -56.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INRG.L and FLCH.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

INRG.LFLCHDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-92.06%

-56.22%

-35.84%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.62%

-16.55%

+3.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-43.83%

-24.50%

-19.33%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-57.62%

-48.90%

-8.72%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-65.78%

—

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-60.08%

-33.71%

-26.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-74.81%

-26.10%

-48.71%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.30%

7.48%

-3.18%

Volatility

INRG.L vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist) (INRG.L) has a higher volatility of 10.72% compared to Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) at 5.69%. This indicates that INRG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLCH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

INRG.LFLCHDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.72%

5.69%

+5.03%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

18.19%

12.68%

+5.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

24.58%

18.22%

+6.36%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

24.89%

28.00%

-3.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

25.38%

26.88%

-1.50%

INRG.L vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

INRG.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

INRG.L vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

INRG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, less than FLCH's 2.61% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FLCH
Franklin FTSE China ETF		2.61%2.36%2.87%3.47%2.69%1.48%0.91%1.98%1.92%0.01%0.00%0.00%
INRG.L
iShares Global Clean Energy UCITS ETF USD (Dist)		0.87%1.34%1.24%0.80%0.51%0.74%0.48%1.60%2.81%2.83%2.73%2.55%

Frequently Asked Questions

INRG.L and FLCH have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for INRG.L.

INRG.L is categorized as Energy Equities, while FLCH is China Equities. INRG.L tracks S&P Global Clean Energy TR USD, while FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for INRG.L and 0.19% for FLCH.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for INRG.L and FLCH

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