PCIG vs. MCSE

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

PCIG (Polen Capital International Growth ETF) and MCSE (Franklin Sustainable International Equity ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PCIG returned -4.20% vs 4.30% for MCSE. Their 0.63 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. PCIG charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for MCSE.

Performance

PCIG vs. MCSE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital International Growth ETF (PCIG) and Franklin Sustainable International Equity ETF (MCSE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PCIG achieves a -3.73% return, which is significantly lower than MCSE's 1.12% return.

PCIG

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 0.45%
• 6M: -5.26%
• YTD: -3.73%
• 1Y: -4.20%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -5.18%

MCSE

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.00%
• YTD: 1.12%
• 1Y: 4.30%
• 3Y*: 0.74%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.06%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
MCSE Franklin Sustainable International Equity ETF	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
PCIG Polen Capital International Growth ETF	$54.08K	$64.30K	$56.43K

PCIG vs. MCSE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PCIG Polen Capital International Growth ETF	-3.73%	-0.02%	-8.47%
MCSE Franklin Sustainable International Equity ETF	1.12%	7.79%	-16.17%

Correlation

The correlation between PCIG and MCSE is 0.41, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 15, 2024	0.63

Over the past year, the correlation between PCIG and MCSE has dropped to 0.41 - well below their long-term average of 0.63, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

PCIG vs. MCSE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PCIG	MCSE
Technology	21.8%	31.1%
Financial Services	9.6%	2.1%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	13.8%
Communication Services	6.2%	4.7%
Energy	5.6%	-
Basic Materials	4.1%	5.1%
Healthcare	3.1%	20.1%
Industrials	2.2%	18.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.0%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PCIG vs. MCSE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

PCIG

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

MCSE

MCSE Risk / Return Rank: 20
MCSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
MCSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
MCSE Omega Ratio Rank: 24
MCSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
MCSE Martin Ratio Rank: 18

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

PCIG vs. MCSE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital International Growth ETF (PCIG) and Franklin Sustainable International Equity ETF (MCSE). 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.

	PCIG	MCSE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.21	0.46	-0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.17	0.70	-0.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	1.12	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.20	0.45	-0.66
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.44	1.13	-1.57

PCIG vs. MCSE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCIG Sharpe Ratio is -0.21, which is lower than the MCSE Sharpe Ratio of 0.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCIG and MCSE, 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

PCIG vs. MCSE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCIG drawdown since its inception was -23.40%, smaller than the maximum MCSE drawdown of -26.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCIG and MCSE.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCIG	MCSE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.40%	-26.36%	+2.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.69%	-10.42%	-10.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.36%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.86%	-10.51%	-2.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.58%	-8.80%	+1.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.48%	4.37%	+5.11%

Volatility

PCIG vs. MCSE - Volatility Comparison

Polen Capital International Growth ETF (PCIG) has a higher volatility of 6.07% compared to Franklin Sustainable International Equity ETF (MCSE) at 0.00%. This indicates that PCIG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MCSE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PCIG	MCSE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.07%	0.00%	+6.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.18%	1.87%	+14.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.73%	10.29%	+9.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.36%	19.07%	-0.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.36%	19.07%	-0.71%

PCIG vs. MCSE - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCIG has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than MCSE's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCIG vs. MCSE - Dividend Comparison

PCIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than MCSE's 3.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
MCSE Franklin Sustainable International Equity ETF	3.74%	3.78%	0.63%	0.57%	0.48%
PCIG Polen Capital International Growth ETF	0.15%	0.14%	0.36%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCIG and MCSE in my portfolio?

PCIG and MCSE have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCIG or MCSE?

PCIG has higher volatility (6.07%) compared to MCSE (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCIG dropped -23.40% vs MCSE's -26.36%.

Which ETF is better, PCIG or MCSE?

On 1-year performance, MCSE leads with 4.30% vs -4.20% for PCIG. On fees, MCSE is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, MCSE has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCIG or MCSE?

Over the 1-year period, MCSE has performed better with a 4.30% return vs -4.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCIG or MCSE?

MCSE is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for PCIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PCIG or MCSE?

MCSE has the higher dividend yield at 3.74%, compared with 0.15% for PCIG.

What is the main difference between PCIG and MCSE?

They also come from different issuers: Polen and Franklin. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for PCIG and 0.59% for MCSE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.46 vs -0.21), 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.