JHCB vs. FLRN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

JHCB (John Hancock Corporate Bond ETF) and FLRN (SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. JHCB is actively managed, while FLRN is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, JHCB returned 0.64%/yr vs 4.19%/yr for FLRN. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. JHCB charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FLRN.

Performance

JHCB vs. FLRN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in John Hancock Corporate Bond ETF (JHCB) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JHCB achieves a 0.37% return, which is significantly lower than FLRN's 1.87% return.

JHCB

• 1D: -0.19%
• 1M: 0.63%
• YTD: 0.37%
• 6M: -0.08%
• 1Y: 5.68%
• 3Y*: 5.68%
• 5Y*: 0.64%
• 10Y*: —

FLRN

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.45%
• YTD: 1.87%
• 6M: 2.19%
• 1Y: 4.88%
• 3Y*: 5.67%
• 5Y*: 4.19%
• 10Y*: 3.03%

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

JHCB vs. FLRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
JHCB John Hancock Corporate Bond ETF	0.37%	8.02%	2.75%	8.89%	-15.93%	3.41%
FLRN SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	1.87%	5.01%	6.32%	6.54%	1.31%	0.15%

Correlation

The correlation between JHCB and FLRN is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.10
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2021	0.08

Return for Risk

JHCB vs. FLRN — Risk / Return Rank

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

JHCB

JHCB Risk / Return Rank: 37
JHCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
JHCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
JHCB Omega Ratio Rank: 35
JHCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
JHCB Martin Ratio Rank: 38

FLRN

FLRN Risk / Return Rank: 99
FLRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
FLRN Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

JHCB vs. FLRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for John Hancock Corporate Bond ETF (JHCB) and SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN). 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.

	JHCB	FLRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.30	7.18	-5.88
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.89	13.18	-11.29
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	3.44	-2.21
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.81	21.54	-19.73
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.94	130.06	-124.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JHCB vs. FLRN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JHCB Sharpe Ratio is 1.30, which is lower than the FLRN Sharpe Ratio of 7.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JHCB and FLRN, 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

	JHCB	FLRN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.30	7.18	-5.88
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09	2.50	-2.41
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.72	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.15	0.50	-0.35

Drawdowns

JHCB vs. FLRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JHCB drawdown since its inception was -22.61%, which is greater than FLRN's maximum drawdown of -14.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JHCB and FLRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	JHCB	FLRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.61%	-14.64%	-7.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.16%	-0.23%	-2.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.54%	-1.43%	-5.11%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.61%	-2.16%	-20.45%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-14.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.04%	0.00%	-1.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.21%	-1.83%	-6.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.96%	0.04%	+0.92%

Volatility

JHCB vs. FLRN - Volatility Comparison

John Hancock Corporate Bond ETF (JHCB) has a higher volatility of 1.42% compared to SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLRN) at 0.15%. This indicates that JHCB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLRN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JHCB	FLRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.42%	0.15%	+1.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.25%	0.52%	+2.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.41%	0.68%	+3.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.95%	1.69%	+5.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.88%	4.20%	+2.68%

JHCB vs. FLRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

JHCB has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is higher than FLRN's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

JHCB vs. FLRN - Dividend Comparison

JHCB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.96%, more than FLRN's 4.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLRN SPDR Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	4.51%	4.89%	5.67%	5.68%	1.95%	0.39%	1.22%	2.76%	2.39%	1.64%	1.06%	0.63%
JHCB John Hancock Corporate Bond ETF	4.96%	4.92%	5.02%	4.35%	3.86%	2.41%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JHCB and FLRN in my portfolio?

JHCB and FLRN have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JHCB or FLRN?

JHCB has higher volatility (1.42%) compared to FLRN (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JHCB dropped -22.61% vs FLRN's -14.64%.

Which ETF is better, JHCB or FLRN?

On 5-year performance, FLRN leads with 4.19% vs 0.64% for JHCB. On fees, FLRN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, FLRN has been the lower-risk option at 0.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JHCB or FLRN?

Over the 5-year period, FLRN has performed better with a 4.19% return vs 0.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JHCB or FLRN?

FLRN is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for JHCB.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, JHCB or FLRN?

JHCB has the higher dividend yield at 4.96%, compared with 4.51% for FLRN.

What is the main difference between JHCB and FLRN?

They also come from different issuers: John Hancock and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for JHCB and 0.15% for FLRN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLRN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (7.18 vs 1.30), 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.