PCCE vs. FLDB

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

PCCE (Polen Capital China Growth ETF) and FLDB (Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PCCE is a China Equities fund actively managed by Polen, while FLDB is a Short-Term Bond fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PCCE returned -2.41% vs 4.16% for FLDB. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. PCCE charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for FLDB.

Performance

PCCE vs. FLDB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) and Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PCCE achieves a -6.34% return, which is significantly lower than FLDB's 1.63% return.

PCCE

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: -5.27%
• YTD: -6.34%
• 6M: -7.50%
• 1Y: -2.41%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLDB

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.40%
• YTD: 1.63%
• 6M: 1.82%
• 1Y: 4.16%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PCCE vs. FLDB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PCCE Polen Capital China Growth ETF	-6.34%	23.07%	10.79%
FLDB Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF	1.63%	4.93%	3.98%

Correlation

The correlation between PCCE and FLDB is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2024	-0.01

Return for Risk

PCCE vs. FLDB — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCCE

PCCE Risk / Return Rank: 8
PCCE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
PCCE Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
PCCE Omega Ratio Rank: 7
PCCE Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
PCCE Martin Ratio Rank: 8

FLDB

FLDB Risk / Return Rank: 98
FLDB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
FLDB Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
FLDB Omega Ratio Rank: 98
FLDB Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
FLDB Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

PCCE vs. FLDB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) and Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB). 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.

	PCCE	FLDB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.13	4.54	-4.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.05	8.14	-8.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	2.07	-1.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.15	24.91	-25.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.31	91.30	-91.61

PCCE vs. FLDB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCCE Sharpe Ratio is -0.13, which is lower than the FLDB Sharpe Ratio of 4.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCCE and FLDB, 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

PCCE vs. FLDB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCCE drawdown since its inception was -26.38%, which is greater than FLDB's maximum drawdown of -0.49%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCCE and FLDB.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCCE	FLDB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.38%	-0.49%	-25.89%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.59%	-0.17%	-16.42%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-14.53%	0.00%	-14.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.01%	-0.05%	-9.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.91%	0.05%	+7.86%

Volatility

PCCE vs. FLDB - Volatility Comparison

Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) has a higher volatility of 6.24% compared to Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF (FLDB) at 0.36%. This indicates that PCCE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLDB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PCCE	FLDB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.24%	0.36%	+5.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.96%	0.63%	+14.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.28%	0.92%	+18.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.11%	1.31%	+24.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.11%	1.31%	+24.80%

PCCE vs. FLDB - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCCE has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than FLDB's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCCE vs. FLDB - Dividend Comparison

PCCE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.44%, less than FLDB's 4.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FLDB Fidelity Low Duration Bond ETF	4.44%	4.72%	3.58%
PCCE Polen Capital China Growth ETF	2.44%	2.29%	1.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCCE and FLDB in my portfolio?

PCCE and FLDB have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCCE or FLDB?

PCCE has higher volatility (6.24%) compared to FLDB (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCCE dropped -26.38% vs FLDB's -0.49%.

Which ETF is better, PCCE or FLDB?

On 1-year performance, FLDB leads with 4.16% vs -2.41% for PCCE. On fees, FLDB is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, FLDB has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCCE or FLDB?

Over the 1-year period, FLDB has performed better with a 4.16% return vs -2.41%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCCE or FLDB?

FLDB is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for PCCE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PCCE or FLDB?

FLDB has the higher dividend yield at 4.44%, compared with 2.44% for PCCE.

What is the main difference between PCCE and FLDB?

PCCE is categorized as China Equities, while FLDB is Short-Term Bond. They also come from different issuers: Polen and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for PCCE and 0.20% for FLDB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLDB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.54 vs -0.13), 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.