MCH vs. FLCH

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

MCH (Matthews China Active ETF) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both China Equities funds. MCH is actively managed, while FLCH is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MCH returned 13.58%/yr vs 11.28%/yr for FLCH. With a 0.95 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. MCH charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

MCH vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) 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, MCH achieves a 5.32% return, which is significantly higher than FLCH's -4.71% return.

MCH

• 1D: 3.55%
• 1M: 5.14%
• YTD: 5.32%
• 6M: 4.53%
• 1Y: 30.67%
• 3Y*: 13.58%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLCH

• 1D: 2.58%
• 1M: -1.61%
• YTD: -4.71%
• 6M: -6.63%
• 1Y: 11.26%
• 3Y*: 11.28%
• 5Y*: -4.43%
• 10Y*: —

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

MCH vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MCH Matthews China Active ETF	5.32%	30.20%	17.32%	-19.91%	-3.12%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-4.71%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	-7.66%

Correlation

The correlation between MCH and FLCH is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2022	0.95

The correlation between MCH and FLCH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

MCH vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCH	FLCH
Financial Services	25.5%	18.2%
Consumer Cyclical	16.2%	23.4%
Technology	15.0%	12.9%
Communication Services	13.2%	14.2%
Industrials	12.4%	9.1%
Basic Materials	9.5%	5.5%
Healthcare	5.5%	5.3%
Real Estate	2.7%	1.7%
Energy	1.0%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	0.6%	3.3%
Utilities	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

MCH vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCH

MCH Risk / Return Rank: 41
MCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
MCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
MCH Omega Ratio Rank: 41
MCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
MCH Martin Ratio Rank: 36

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 18
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 18
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

MCH vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) 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.

	MCH	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.53	0.59	+0.94
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	0.95	+1.22
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.12	+0.15
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.08	0.78	+1.30
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.62	1.65	+3.97
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCH vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCH Sharpe Ratio is 1.53, which is higher than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of 0.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCH 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MCH	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.53	0.59	+0.94
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.15	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.20	0.03	+0.17

Drawdowns

MCH vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCH drawdown since its inception was -40.53%, smaller than the maximum FLCH drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCH and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCH	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.53%	-62.09%	+21.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.05%	-15.52%	+0.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.57%	-25.43%	-5.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-55.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.16%	-32.83%	+30.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.52%	-30.53%	+12.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.57%	7.32%	-1.75%

Volatility

MCH vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

Matthews China Active ETF (MCH) and Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) have volatilities of 6.60% and 6.40%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCH	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.60%	6.40%	+0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.42%	13.58%	+0.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.14%	19.16%	+0.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.54%	29.60%	-0.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.54%	27.91%	+1.63%

MCH vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

MCH vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

MCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, less than FLCH's 2.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.48%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
MCH Matthews China Active ETF	1.67%	1.76%	1.31%	1.62%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCH and FLCH in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, MCH and FLCH move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, MCH or FLCH?

MCH has higher volatility (6.60%) compared to FLCH (6.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCH dropped -40.53% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, MCH or FLCH?

On 3-year performance, MCH leads with 13.58% vs 11.28% for FLCH. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 6.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCH or FLCH?

Over the 3-year period, MCH has performed better with a 13.58% return vs 11.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCH or FLCH?

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

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

FLCH has the higher dividend yield at 2.48%, compared with 1.67% for MCH.

What is the main difference between MCH and FLCH?

They also come from different issuers: Matthews and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for MCH and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.53 vs 0.59), 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.