ISVBF vs. FLCH

Last updated Jul 18, 2026

ISVBF (iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both China Equities funds - ISVBF tracks the MSCI China A Inclusion Index while FLCH tracks the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ISVBF returned -5.86%/yr vs -4.82%/yr for FLCH. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ISVBF charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

ISVBF vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with ISVBF having a -11.22% return and FLCH slightly higher at -11.05%.

ISVBF

• 1D: -2.45%
• 1M: -0.50%
• 6M: -14.17%
• YTD: -11.22%
• 1Y: -4.49%
• 3Y*: 7.64%
• 5Y*: -5.86%
• 10Y*: —

FLCH

• 1D: -2.50%
• 1M: -0.43%
• 6M: -14.23%
• YTD: -11.05%
• 1Y: -4.28%
• 3Y*: 8.54%
• 5Y*: -4.82%
• 10Y*: —

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

ISVBF vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	-11.22%	30.64%	18.96%	-9.28%	-23.01%	-22.12%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-11.05%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	-22.74%	-20.57%

Correlation

The correlation between ISVBF and FLCH is 0.67, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.52
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 5, 2021	0.36

Over the past year, ISVBF and FLCH have become more correlated (0.67) than their long-term average of 0.36, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

ISVBF vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

ISVBF

ISVBF Risk / Return Rank: 8
ISVBF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
ISVBF Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
ISVBF Omega Ratio Rank: 9
ISVBF Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
ISVBF Martin Ratio Rank: 8

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 7
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 7
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

ISVBF vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) 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.

	ISVBF	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.14	-0.22	+0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.02	-0.17	+0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	0.98	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.19	-0.20	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.42	-0.44	+0.02

ISVBF vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ISVBF Sharpe Ratio is -0.14, which is higher than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of -0.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ISVBF 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

ISVBF vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ISVBF drawdown since its inception was -53.78%, smaller than the maximum FLCH drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ISVBF and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	ISVBF	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.78%	-62.09%	+8.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.14%	-21.48%	-2.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.14%	-25.43%	+1.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-52.51%	-52.45%	-0.06%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-28.04%	-37.30%	+9.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.63%	-30.61%	-2.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.62%	9.71%	+0.91%

Volatility

ISVBF vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF (ISVBF) has a higher volatility of 7.79% compared to Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) at 6.18%. This indicates that ISVBF'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.

Volatility by Period

	ISVBF	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.79%	6.18%	+1.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	27.11%	13.90%	+13.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	31.54%	19.78%	+11.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.47%	29.60%	+0.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.12%	27.82%	+2.30%

ISVBF vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

ISVBF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

ISVBF vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

ISVBF has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.43%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.43%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
ISVBF iShares MSCI China A UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ISVBF and FLCH in my portfolio?

ISVBF and FLCH have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ISVBF or FLCH?

ISVBF has higher volatility (7.79%) compared to FLCH (6.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ISVBF dropped -53.78% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, ISVBF or FLCH?

On 5-year performance, FLCH leads with -4.82% vs -5.86% for ISVBF. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 6.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ISVBF or FLCH?

Over the 5-year period, FLCH has performed better with a -4.82% return vs -5.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ISVBF or FLCH?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for ISVBF.

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

FLCH has the higher dividend yield at 2.43%, compared with 0.00% for ISVBF.

What is the main difference between ISVBF and FLCH?

ISVBF tracks MSCI China A Inclusion Index, while FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for ISVBF and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ISVBF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.14 vs -0.22), 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.