PBDC vs. FLCH

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

PBDC (Putnam BDC Income ETF) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PBDC is a Financials Equities fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton, while FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. PBDC is actively managed, while FLCH is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PBDC returned 7.11%/yr vs 8.98%/yr for FLCH. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PBDC charges 13.49%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

PBDC vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Putnam BDC Income ETF (PBDC) 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, PBDC achieves a -11.42% return, which is significantly higher than FLCH's -12.17% return.

PBDC

• 1D: 0.30%
• 1M: -1.31%
• YTD: -11.42%
• 6M: -9.25%
• 1Y: -11.33%
• 3Y*: 7.11%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLCH

• 1D: -1.88%
• 1M: -5.67%
• YTD: -12.17%
• 6M: -12.94%
• 1Y: -0.05%
• 3Y*: 8.98%
• 5Y*: -5.91%
• 10Y*: —

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

PBDC vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PBDC Putnam BDC Income ETF	-11.42%	-1.77%	19.43%	30.52%	10.38%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-12.17%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	12.17%

Correlation

The correlation between PBDC and FLCH is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.24
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 30, 2022	0.25

Return for Risk

PBDC vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBDC

PBDC Risk / Return Rank: 4
PBDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
PBDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
PBDC Omega Ratio Rank: 4
PBDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
PBDC Martin Ratio Rank: 4

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 9
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 8
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.

PBDC vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Putnam BDC Income ETF (PBDC) 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.

	PBDC	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.61	-0.00	-0.61
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.76	0.13	-0.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.91	1.02	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.56	-0.00	-0.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.98	-0.01	-0.97

PBDC vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBDC Sharpe Ratio is -0.61, which is lower than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of -0.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBDC 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

PBDC vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBDC drawdown since its inception was -20.47%, smaller than the maximum FLCH drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBDC and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBDC	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.47%	-62.09%	+41.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.15%	-19.59%	-0.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.47%	-25.43%	+4.96%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-55.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-18.74%	-38.09%	+19.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.83%	-30.55%	+25.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.58%	8.32%	+3.26%

Volatility

PBDC vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

Putnam BDC Income ETF (PBDC) and Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) have volatilities of 5.50% and 5.65%, 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

	PBDC	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.50%	5.65%	-0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.43%	14.07%	+1.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.66%	19.43%	-0.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.05%	29.63%	-12.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.05%	27.86%	-10.81%

PBDC vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBDC has a 13.49% expense ratio, which is higher than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBDC vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

PBDC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.91%, more than FLCH's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	1.77%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
PBDC Putnam BDC Income ETF	11.91%	10.53%	9.29%	9.86%	3.40%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBDC and FLCH in my portfolio?

PBDC and FLCH have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBDC or FLCH?

FLCH has higher volatility (5.65%) compared to PBDC (5.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBDC dropped -20.47% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, PBDC or FLCH?

On 3-year performance, FLCH leads with 8.98% vs 7.11% for PBDC. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, PBDC has been the lower-risk option at 5.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBDC or FLCH?

Over the 3-year period, FLCH has performed better with a 8.98% return vs 7.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBDC or FLCH?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 13.49% for PBDC.

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

PBDC has the higher dividend yield at 11.91%, compared with 1.77% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between PBDC and FLCH?

PBDC is categorized as Financials Equities, while FLCH is China Equities. Their fees differ too: 13.49% for PBDC and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.00 vs -0.61), 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.