IPAC vs. FLCH

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

IPAC (iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IPAC is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index, while FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, IPAC returned 8.61%/yr vs -5.32%/yr for FLCH. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. IPAC charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

IPAC vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) and Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IPAC achieves a 16.23% return, which is significantly higher than FLCH's -10.49% return.

IPAC

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 3.91%
• YTD: 16.23%
• 6M: 16.46%
• 1Y: 33.01%
• 3Y*: 18.33%
• 5Y*: 8.61%
• 10Y*: 9.63%

FLCH

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: -3.87%
• YTD: -10.49%
• 6M: -11.51%
• 1Y: 2.54%
• 3Y*: 9.67%
• 5Y*: -5.32%
• 10Y*: —

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

IPAC vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	16.23%	25.16%	6.18%	14.51%	-13.68%	3.09%	12.39%	19.44%	-12.78%	2.89%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-10.49%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	-22.74%	-20.87%	30.09%	24.32%	-19.52%	1.51%

Correlation

The correlation between IPAC and FLCH is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.57

The correlation between IPAC and FLCH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

IPAC vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IPAC	FLCH
Financial Services	22.7%	14.4%
Industrials	19.2%	15.5%
Technology	17.0%	16.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	25.5%
Basic Materials	8.7%	6.0%
Healthcare	5.0%	2.1%
Communication Services	4.7%	2.1%
Real Estate	4.5%	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	1.2%
Energy	1.6%	12.6%
Utilities	1.5%	2.0%

Return for Risk

IPAC vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

IPAC

IPAC Risk / Return Rank: 60
IPAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
IPAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
IPAC Omega Ratio Rank: 62
IPAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
IPAC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 10
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 10
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 10

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.

IPAC vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) 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.

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.

	IPAC	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.96	0.13	+1.82
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	0.32	+2.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.04	+0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.89	0.14	+2.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.30	0.31	+10.00

IPAC vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IPAC Sharpe Ratio is 1.96, which is higher than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of 0.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IPAC 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.

Drawdowns

IPAC vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IPAC drawdown since its inception was -30.99%, smaller than the maximum FLCH drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IPAC and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	IPAC	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.99%	-62.09%	+31.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.49%	-18.29%	+6.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.45%	-25.43%	+9.98%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.64%	-55.78%	+26.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-36.90%	+36.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.46%	-30.55%	+23.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.21%	8.23%	-5.02%

Volatility

IPAC vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) and Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) have volatilities of 5.39% and 5.46%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IPAC	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.39%	5.46%	-0.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.89%	13.98%	-0.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.99%	19.37%	-2.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.74%	29.63%	-12.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.61%	27.86%	-11.25%

IPAC vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

IPAC has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

IPAC vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

IPAC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.80%, more than FLCH's 1.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	1.73%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	3.80%	4.32%	3.43%	3.16%	2.76%	4.03%	1.68%	3.37%	2.95%	2.98%	2.66%	2.60%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IPAC and FLCH in my portfolio?

IPAC and FLCH have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IPAC or FLCH?

FLCH has higher volatility (5.46%) compared to IPAC (5.39%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IPAC dropped -30.99% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, IPAC or FLCH?

On 5-year performance, IPAC leads with 8.61% vs -5.32% for FLCH. On fees, IPAC is cheaper at 0.09% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IPAC or FLCH?

Over the 5-year period, IPAC has performed better with a 8.61% return vs -5.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IPAC or FLCH?

IPAC is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for FLCH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IPAC or FLCH?

IPAC has the higher dividend yield at 3.80%, compared with 1.73% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between IPAC and FLCH?

IPAC is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FLCH is China Equities. IPAC tracks MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index, while FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for IPAC and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IPAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.96 vs 0.13), 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.