NUKZ vs. FLCH

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

NUKZ (Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NUKZ is a Energy Equities fund tracking the Range Nuclear Renaissance Index, while FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, NUKZ returned 31.62% vs 2.19% for FLCH. At a 0.38 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. NUKZ charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

NUKZ vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) 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, NUKZ achieves a 7.72% return, which is significantly higher than FLCH's -9.50% return.

NUKZ

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: -6.54%
• YTD: 7.72%
• 6M: 3.81%
• 1Y: 31.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLCH

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: -8.03%
• YTD: -9.50%
• 6M: -11.21%
• 1Y: 2.19%
• 3Y*: 8.94%
• 5Y*: -5.25%
• 10Y*: —

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

NUKZ vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	7.72%	56.57%	62.98%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-9.50%	32.55%	25.01%

Correlation

The correlation between NUKZ and FLCH is 0.45, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2024	0.38

NUKZ vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NUKZ	FLCH
Industrials	45.9%	9.1%
Utilities	35.8%	2.0%
Energy	12.9%	3.7%
Basic Materials	4.0%	5.5%
Technology	1.4%	12.9%
Communication Services	-	14.2%
Consumer Cyclical	-	23.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.3%
Financial Services	-	18.2%
Healthcare	-	5.3%
Real Estate	-	1.7%

Return for Risk

NUKZ vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

NUKZ

NUKZ Risk / Return Rank: 34
NUKZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
NUKZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
NUKZ Omega Ratio Rank: 30
NUKZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
NUKZ Martin Ratio Rank: 35

FLCH

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

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.

NUKZ vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) 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.

	NUKZ	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	0.11	+0.94
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.59	0.30	+1.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.04	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.92	0.13	+1.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.79	0.29	+4.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NUKZ vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NUKZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is higher than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of 0.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NUKZ 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

	NUKZ	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.05	0.11	+0.94
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.18	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.63	0.00	+1.63

Drawdowns

NUKZ vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NUKZ drawdown since its inception was -33.03%, smaller than the maximum FLCH drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NUKZ and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	NUKZ	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.03%	-62.09%	+29.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.51%	-17.14%	+0.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-25.43%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-55.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.27%	-36.20%	+25.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.02%	-30.54%	+24.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.62%	7.58%	-0.96%

Volatility

NUKZ vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF (NUKZ) has a higher volatility of 10.20% compared to Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) at 6.46%. This indicates that NUKZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLCH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NUKZ	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.20%	6.46%	+3.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.61%	13.88%	+8.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.26%	19.31%	+10.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.82%	29.61%	+3.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.82%	27.91%	+4.91%

NUKZ vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

NUKZ has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

NUKZ vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

NUKZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, less than FLCH's 2.61% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.61%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
NUKZ Range Nuclear Renaissance ETF	0.85%	0.91%	0.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NUKZ and FLCH in my portfolio?

NUKZ and FLCH have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NUKZ or FLCH?

NUKZ has higher volatility (10.20%) compared to FLCH (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NUKZ dropped -33.03% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, NUKZ or FLCH?

On 1-year performance, NUKZ leads with 31.62% vs 2.19% for FLCH. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 6.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NUKZ or FLCH?

Over the 1-year period, NUKZ has performed better with a 31.62% return vs 2.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NUKZ or FLCH?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

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

FLCH has the higher dividend yield at 2.61%, compared with 0.85% for NUKZ.

What is the main difference between NUKZ and FLCH?

NUKZ is categorized as Energy Equities, while FLCH is China Equities. NUKZ tracks Range Nuclear Renaissance Index, while FLCH tracks FTSE China RIC Capped Index. They also come from different issuers: Exchange Traded Concepts and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for NUKZ and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NUKZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.05 vs 0.11), 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.