PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LCTU vs. FLGV
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LCTU vs. FLGV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and Franklin Liberty U.S. Treasury Bond ETF (FLGV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCTU achieves a 6.58% return, which is significantly higher than FLGV's 0.73% return.


LCTU

1D
-0.13%
1M
-0.89%
YTD
6.58%
6M
5.24%
1Y
20.43%
3Y*
19.60%
5Y*
11.54%
10Y*

FLGV

1D
0.52%
1M
1.10%
YTD
0.73%
6M
0.60%
1Y
3.45%
3Y*
3.16%
5Y*
-0.03%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LCTU vs. FLGV - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
LCTU
BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF
6.58%16.96%24.00%25.38%-20.02%17.74%
FLGV
Franklin Liberty U.S. Treasury Bond ETF
0.73%6.22%0.62%4.18%-11.53%1.41%

Correlation

The correlation between LCTU and FLGV is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.24

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.18

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.09

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 8, 2021

0.09

The correlation between LCTU and FLGV shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (5 years) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

LCTU vs. FLGV — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCTU
LCTU Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
LCTU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LCTU Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
LCTU Omega Ratio Rank: 5151
Omega Ratio Rank
LCTU Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
LCTU Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
Martin Ratio Rank

FLGV
FLGV Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
FLGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLGV Omega Ratio Rank: 2525
Omega Ratio Rank
FLGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2727
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLGV Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

LCTU vs. FLGV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and Franklin Liberty U.S. Treasury Bond ETF (FLGV). 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.


LCTUFLGVDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.67

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.81

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.16

+0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.19

1.23

+0.96

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.41

3.37

+6.04

LCTU vs. FLGV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCTU Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is higher than the FLGV Sharpe Ratio of 0.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCTU and FLGV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

LCTU vs. FLGV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCTU drawdown since its inception was -25.93%, which is greater than FLGV's maximum drawdown of -17.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCTU and FLGV.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LCTUFLGVDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-25.93%

-17.63%

-8.30%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.38%

-2.82%

-6.56%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.83%

-5.23%

-14.60%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.93%

-15.26%

-10.67%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.98%

-4.91%

+1.93%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.27%

-8.70%

+2.43%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.18%

1.03%

+1.15%

Volatility

LCTU vs. FLGV - Volatility Comparison

BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) has a higher volatility of 4.57% compared to Franklin Liberty U.S. Treasury Bond ETF (FLGV) at 1.14%. This indicates that LCTU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLGV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LCTUFLGVDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.57%

1.14%

+3.43%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.08%

2.65%

+7.43%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.79%

3.72%

+9.07%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.23%

5.44%

+11.79%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.03%

5.15%

+11.88%

LCTU vs. FLGV - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCTU has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than FLGV's 0.09% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

LCTU vs. FLGV - Dividend Comparison

LCTU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, less than FLGV's 4.12% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020
FLGV
Franklin Liberty U.S. Treasury Bond ETF
4.12%4.07%4.13%3.46%2.21%1.92%0.97%
LCTU
BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF
0.98%1.02%1.27%1.46%1.63%2.20%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


LCTU and FLGV have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

LCTU has higher volatility (4.57%) compared to FLGV (1.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCTU dropped -25.93% vs FLGV's -17.63%.

On 5-year performance, LCTU leads with 11.54% vs -0.03% for FLGV. On fees, FLGV is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLGV has been the lower-risk option at 1.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, LCTU has performed better with a 11.54% return vs -0.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FLGV is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for LCTU.

FLGV has the higher dividend yield at 4.12%, compared with 0.98% for LCTU.

LCTU is categorized as ESG, while FLGV is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LCTU and 0.09% for FLGV.

LCTU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.61 vs 0.93), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LCTU and FLGV

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer