IPAC vs. FLJH

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

IPAC (iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IPAC is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index, 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, IPAC returned 7.79%/yr vs 21.04%/yr for FLJH. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.09% expense ratio.

Performance

IPAC vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IPAC achieves a 13.28% return, which is significantly lower than FLJH's 21.27% return.

IPAC

• 1D: -1.50%
• 1M: 0.55%
• 6M: 8.51%
• YTD: 13.28%
• 1Y: 27.10%
• 3Y*: 15.99%
• 5Y*: 7.79%
• 10Y*: 8.77%

FLJH

• 1D: -1.74%
• 1M: 2.04%
• 6M: 14.20%
• YTD: 21.27%
• 1Y: 45.96%
• 3Y*: 27.94%
• 5Y*: 21.04%
• 10Y*: —

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

IPAC vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	13.28%	25.16%	6.18%	14.51%	-13.68%	3.09%	12.39%	19.44%	-12.78%	2.89%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	21.27%	25.26%	25.89%	36.02%	-2.75%	12.68%	10.65%	20.34%	-14.66%	1.26%

Correlation

The correlation between IPAC and FLJH is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.76

The correlation between IPAC and FLJH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

IPAC vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IPAC	FLJH
Financial Services	22.3%	15.8%
Industrials	19.5%	25.2%
Technology	18.2%	19.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	12.7%
Basic Materials	8.4%	4.4%
Healthcare	5.2%	5.5%
Real Estate	4.8%	3.0%
Communication Services	3.8%	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	4.0%
Utilities	1.6%	1.2%
Energy	1.6%	0.9%

Return for Risk

IPAC vs. FLJH — 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: 59
IPAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
IPAC Omega Ratio Rank: 61
IPAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
IPAC Martin Ratio Rank: 60

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 89
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	IPAC	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	2.41	-0.84
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.21	3.20	-0.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.44	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.37	4.28	-1.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.37	16.18	-7.80

IPAC vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IPAC Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is lower than the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IPAC 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.

Drawdowns

IPAC vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IPAC drawdown since its inception was -30.99%, roughly equal to the maximum FLJH drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IPAC and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	IPAC	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.99%	-31.51%	+0.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.49%	-10.80%	-0.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.45%	-20.39%	+4.94%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.64%	-20.39%	-9.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.53%	-3.22%	+0.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.43%	-5.28%	-2.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.24%	2.85%	+0.39%

Volatility

IPAC vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF (IPAC) is 5.94%, while Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) has a volatility of 7.11%. This indicates that IPAC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IPAC	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.94%	7.11%	-1.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.54%	15.13%	-0.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.38%	19.20%	-1.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.81%	18.72%	-1.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.60%	19.88%	-3.28%

IPAC vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both IPAC and FLJH have an expense ratio of 0.09%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

IPAC vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

IPAC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.90%, more than FLJH's 2.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	2.48%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%	0.00%	0.00%
IPAC iShares Core MSCI Pacific ETF	3.90%	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 FLJH in my portfolio?

IPAC and FLJH have a correlation of 0.82, 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 FLJH?

FLJH has higher volatility (7.11%) compared to IPAC (5.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IPAC dropped -30.99% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, IPAC or FLJH?

On 5-year performance, FLJH leads with 21.04% vs 7.79% for IPAC. Both ETFs have the same 0.09% expense ratio. On volatility, IPAC has been the lower-risk option at 5.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IPAC or FLJH?

Over the 5-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 21.04% return vs 7.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IPAC or FLJH?

IPAC and FLJH have the same expense ratio: 0.09% per year.

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

IPAC has the higher dividend yield at 3.90%, compared with 2.48% for FLJH.

What is the main difference between IPAC and FLJH?

IPAC is categorized as Asia Pacific Equities, while FLJH is Japan Equities. IPAC tracks MSCI Pacific Investable Market Index, while FLJH tracks FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 1.57), 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.