ITB vs. FLM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ITB (iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF) and FLM (First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF) are both Building & Construction funds - ITB tracks the Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index while FLM tracks the ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ITB returned 13.64%/yr vs 8.40%/yr for FLM. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ITB charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for FLM.

Performance

ITB vs. FLM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) and First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ITB achieves a -3.80% return, which is significantly lower than FLM's 19.89% return. Over the past 10 years, ITB has outperformed FLM with an annualized return of 13.64%, while FLM has yielded a comparatively lower 8.40% annualized return.

ITB

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: 1.29%
• YTD: -3.80%
• 6M: -12.12%
• 1Y: 4.04%
• 3Y*: 7.27%
• 5Y*: 6.42%
• 10Y*: 13.64%

FLM

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 19.89%
• 6M: 18.51%
• 1Y: 28.68%
• 3Y*: 22.72%
• 5Y*: 10.76%
• 10Y*: 8.40%

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

ITB vs. FLM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ITB iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF	-3.80%	-5.26%	2.06%	68.91%	-26.26%	49.25%	26.42%	48.70%	-30.92%	59.65%
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	19.89%	13.99%	17.94%	19.36%	-9.87%	12.98%	0.51%	12.81%	-21.72%	22.95%

Correlation

The correlation between ITB and FLM is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.67
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 20, 2008	0.57

The correlation between ITB and FLM shifts across timeframes, from 0.57 (1 year) to 0.67 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ITB vs. FLM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ITB	FLM
Consumer Cyclical	71.8%	-
Industrials	19.1%	37.1%
Basic Materials	8.6%	7.4%
Real Estate	0.5%	5.7%
Communication Services	-	0.7%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	8.1%
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Technology	-	7.9%
Utilities	-	0.7%

Return for Risk

ITB vs. FLM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ITB

ITB Risk / Return Rank: 11
ITB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
ITB Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
ITB Omega Ratio Rank: 11
ITB Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
ITB Martin Ratio Rank: 10

FLM

FLM Risk / Return Rank: 68
FLM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FLM Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
FLM Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FLM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FLM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

ITB vs. FLM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) and First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM). 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.

	ITB	FLM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.14	2.15	-2.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.46	2.93	-2.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.37	-0.32
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.16	4.01	-3.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.31	13.80	-13.49
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ITB vs. FLM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ITB Sharpe Ratio is 0.14, which is lower than the FLM Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ITB and FLM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ITB	FLM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.14	2.15	-2.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.22	0.64	-0.42
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.46	0.45	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	0.38	-0.27

Drawdowns

ITB vs. FLM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ITB drawdown since its inception was -86.53%, which is greater than FLM's maximum drawdown of -50.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ITB and FLM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ITB	FLM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-86.53%	-50.07%	-36.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.04%	-7.19%	-18.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.35%	-19.14%	-14.21%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-40.55%	-23.71%	-16.84%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.10%	-50.07%	-2.03%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-27.07%	-0.71%	-26.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-37.10%	-10.84%	-26.26%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.09%	2.08%	+11.01%

Volatility

ITB vs. FLM - Volatility Comparison

iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF (ITB) has a higher volatility of 8.17% compared to First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) at 4.27%. This indicates that ITB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ITB	FLM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.17%	4.27%	+3.90%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.42%	10.39%	+10.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	29.47%	13.45%	+16.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.19%	16.82%	+12.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	30.00%	18.73%	+11.27%

ITB vs. FLM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ITB has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than FLM's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

ITB vs. FLM - Dividend Comparison

ITB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.23%, more than FLM's 1.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	1.01%	1.19%	1.31%	1.16%	2.10%	1.45%	2.88%	1.84%	1.74%	1.49%	2.01%	1.17%
ITB iShares U.S. Home Construction ETF	1.23%	1.67%	0.46%	0.48%	0.86%	0.37%	0.46%	0.50%	0.63%	0.28%	0.43%	0.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ITB and FLM in my portfolio?

ITB and FLM have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ITB or FLM?

ITB has higher volatility (8.17%) compared to FLM (4.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ITB dropped -86.53% vs FLM's -50.07%.

Which ETF is better, ITB or FLM?

On 10-year performance, ITB leads with 13.64% vs 8.40% for FLM. On fees, ITB is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, FLM has been the lower-risk option at 4.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ITB or FLM?

Over the 10-year period, ITB has performed better with a 13.64% return vs 8.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ITB or FLM?

ITB is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FLM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ITB or FLM?

ITB has the higher dividend yield at 1.23%, compared with 1.01% for FLM.

What is the main difference between ITB and FLM?

ITB tracks Dow Jones U.S. Select Home Construction Index, while FLM tracks ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for ITB and 0.70% for FLM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 0.14), 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.