SQLV vs. FLCH

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

SQLV (Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SQLV is a Small Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton, while FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. SQLV is actively managed, while FLCH is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, SQLV returned 7.15%/yr vs -5.91%/yr for FLCH. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SQLV charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

SQLV vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF (SQLV) 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, SQLV achieves a 16.34% return, which is significantly higher than FLCH's -12.17% return.

SQLV

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: 3.63%
• YTD: 16.34%
• 6M: 15.01%
• 1Y: 28.84%
• 3Y*: 13.42%
• 5Y*: 7.15%
• 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)

SQLV vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
SQLV Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF	16.34%	2.50%	4.76%	21.21%	-12.86%	37.14%	7.13%	17.41%	-10.55%	5.48%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-12.17%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	-22.74%	-20.87%	30.09%	24.32%	-19.52%	1.51%

Correlation

The correlation between SQLV 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	0.33
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.32

SQLV vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SQLV	FLCH
Financial Services	19.4%	14.4%
Healthcare	18.5%	2.1%
Technology	16.9%	16.8%
Consumer Cyclical	13.2%	25.5%
Industrials	10.9%	15.5%
Consumer Defensive	7.2%	1.2%
Communication Services	4.6%	2.1%
Energy	4.4%	12.6%
Basic Materials	3.4%	6.0%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.6%
Utilities	0.6%	2.0%

Return for Risk

SQLV vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

SQLV

SQLV Risk / Return Rank: 56
SQLV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
SQLV Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
SQLV Omega Ratio Rank: 46
SQLV Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
SQLV Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

SQLV vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF (SQLV) 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.

	SQLV	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.64	-0.00	+1.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.40	0.13	+2.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.02	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.28	-0.00	+3.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.82	-0.01	+9.82

SQLV vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SQLV Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is higher than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of -0.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SQLV 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

SQLV vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SQLV drawdown since its inception was -48.34%, smaller than the maximum FLCH drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SQLV and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	SQLV	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.34%	-62.09%	+13.75%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.84%	-19.59%	+10.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.86%	-25.43%	-1.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.86%	-55.78%	+28.92%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.96%	-38.09%	+37.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.90%	-30.55%	+21.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.95%	8.32%	-5.37%

Volatility

SQLV vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF (SQLV) is 4.55%, while Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) has a volatility of 5.65%. This indicates that SQLV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLCH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SQLV	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.55%	5.65%	-1.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.56%	14.07%	-2.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.69%	19.43%	-1.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.98%	29.63%	-8.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.32%	27.86%	-4.54%

SQLV vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

SQLV has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

SQLV vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

SQLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.01%, less 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%
SQLV Royce Quant Small-Cap Quality Value ETF	1.01%	1.15%	1.11%	1.09%	1.24%	1.12%	1.22%	1.20%	1.08%	0.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SQLV and FLCH in my portfolio?

SQLV 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, SQLV or FLCH?

FLCH has higher volatility (5.65%) compared to SQLV (4.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SQLV dropped -48.34% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, SQLV or FLCH?

On 5-year performance, SQLV leads with 7.15% vs -5.91% for FLCH. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, SQLV has been the lower-risk option at 4.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SQLV or FLCH?

Over the 5-year period, SQLV has performed better with a 7.15% return vs -5.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SQLV or FLCH?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for SQLV.

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

FLCH has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 1.01% for SQLV.

What is the main difference between SQLV and FLCH?

SQLV is categorized as Small Cap Value Equities, while FLCH is China Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for SQLV and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SQLV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.64 vs -0.00), 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.