KCAI vs. FLCH

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

KCAI (KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both China Equities funds - KCAI tracks the Qi China Alpha Index while FLCH tracks the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, KCAI returned 38.58% vs -0.94% for FLCH. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. KCAI charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

KCAI vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI) 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, KCAI achieves a 4.38% return, which is significantly higher than FLCH's -8.77% return.

KCAI

• 1D: -1.84%
• 1M: -2.62%
• 6M: 4.21%
• YTD: 4.38%
• 1Y: 38.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLCH

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 0.01%
• 6M: -13.50%
• YTD: -8.77%
• 1Y: -0.94%
• 3Y*: 8.69%
• 5Y*: -4.34%
• 10Y*: —

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

KCAI vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	4.38%	53.29%	11.36%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-8.77%	32.55%	14.96%

Correlation

The correlation between KCAI and FLCH is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2024	0.62

The correlation between KCAI and FLCH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

KCAI vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	KCAI	FLCH
Financial Services	39.0%	18.3%
Industrials	23.6%	11.1%
Technology	13.2%	13.9%
Consumer Cyclical	11.5%	20.0%
Basic Materials	11.3%	5.2%
Healthcare	1.3%	5.7%
Communication Services	-	14.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.2%
Energy	-	3.3%
Real Estate	-	1.6%
Utilities	-	1.8%

Return for Risk

KCAI vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

KCAI

KCAI Risk / Return Rank: 94
KCAI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
KCAI Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
KCAI Omega Ratio Rank: 92
KCAI Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
KCAI Martin Ratio Rank: 94

FLCH

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

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.

KCAI vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI) 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.

	KCAI	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.76	-0.05	+2.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.98	0.07	+3.91
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.01	+0.48
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.57	-0.04	+6.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.62	-0.10	+20.72

KCAI vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KCAI Sharpe Ratio is 2.76, which is higher than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of -0.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KCAI 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

KCAI vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KCAI drawdown since its inception was -25.48%, smaller than the maximum FLCH drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KCAI and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	KCAI	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.48%	-62.09%	+36.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.90%	-21.48%	+15.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-25.43%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-52.77%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.32%	-35.69%	+31.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.93%	-30.60%	+23.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.88%	9.64%	-7.76%

Volatility

KCAI vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF (KCAI) is 5.43%, while Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) has a volatility of 5.89%. This indicates that KCAI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLCH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KCAI	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.43%	5.89%	-0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.59%	13.69%	-4.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.03%	19.62%	-5.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.93%	29.59%	-8.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.93%	27.81%	-6.88%

KCAI vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

KCAI has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

KCAI vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

KCAI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 33.94%, more than FLCH's 2.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.37%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
KCAI KraneShares China Alpha Index ETF	33.94%	35.42%	2.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KCAI and FLCH in my portfolio?

KCAI and FLCH have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KCAI or FLCH?

FLCH has higher volatility (5.89%) compared to KCAI (5.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KCAI dropped -25.48% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, KCAI or FLCH?

On 1-year performance, KCAI leads with 38.58% vs -0.94% for FLCH. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, KCAI has been the lower-risk option at 5.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KCAI or FLCH?

Over the 1-year period, KCAI has performed better with a 38.58% return vs -0.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KCAI or FLCH?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for KCAI.

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

KCAI has the higher dividend yield at 33.94%, compared with 2.37% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between KCAI and FLCH?

KCAI tracks Qi China Alpha Index, while FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: KraneShares and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for KCAI and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KCAI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.76 vs -0.05), 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.