UTES vs. FLJH

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

UTES (Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF) and FLJH (Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - UTES is a Utilities Equities fund actively managed by Virtus Investment Partners, while FLJH is a Japan Equities fund tracking the FTSE Japan RIC Capped Hedged to USD Net Tax Index. UTES is actively managed, while FLJH is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UTES returned 15.32%/yr vs 20.54%/yr for FLJH. At a 0.26 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. UTES charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for FLJH.

Performance

UTES vs. FLJH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF (UTES) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UTES achieves a 0.26% return, which is significantly lower than FLJH's 18.85% return.

UTES

• 1D: 1.56%
• 1M: -0.82%
• YTD: 0.26%
• 6M: 0.49%
• 1Y: 8.95%
• 3Y*: 22.00%
• 5Y*: 15.32%
• 10Y*: 12.27%

FLJH

• 1D: 0.82%
• 1M: 1.43%
• YTD: 18.85%
• 6M: 15.00%
• 1Y: 45.89%
• 3Y*: 25.97%
• 5Y*: 20.54%
• 10Y*: —

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

UTES vs. FLJH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
UTES Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF	0.26%	25.71%	45.35%	-2.46%	0.80%	20.74%	-0.30%	25.48%	5.14%	-1.08%
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	18.85%	25.26%	25.89%	36.02%	-2.75%	12.68%	10.65%	20.34%	-14.66%	1.26%

Correlation

The correlation between UTES and FLJH is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.31
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.28
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 2017	0.26

UTES vs. FLJH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UTES	FLJH
Utilities	100.0%	1.3%
Basic Materials	-	4.3%
Communication Services	-	7.1%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.2%
Energy	-	1.0%
Financial Services	-	15.9%
Healthcare	-	5.9%
Industrials	-	26.6%
Real Estate	-	3.4%
Technology	-	17.4%

Return for Risk

UTES vs. FLJH — Risk / Return Rank

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

UTES

UTES Risk / Return Rank: 16
UTES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
UTES Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
UTES Omega Ratio Rank: 15
UTES Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
UTES Martin Ratio Rank: 17

FLJH

FLJH Risk / Return Rank: 86
FLJH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
FLJH Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FLJH Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FLJH Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FLJH Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

UTES vs. FLJH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF (UTES) and Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH). 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.

	UTES	FLJH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	2.46	-2.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.67	3.35	-2.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.45	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.60	4.20	-3.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.32	16.28	-14.95

UTES vs. FLJH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UTES Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is lower than the FLJH Sharpe Ratio of 2.46. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UTES and FLJH, 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

UTES vs. FLJH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UTES drawdown since its inception was -35.39%, which is greater than FLJH's maximum drawdown of -31.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UTES and FLJH.

Drawdown Indicators

	UTES	FLJH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.39%	-31.51%	-3.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.88%	-10.80%	-3.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.62%	-20.39%	+2.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.40%	-20.39%	-0.01%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.39%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.10%	-1.30%	-7.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.53%	-5.30%	-0.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.29%	2.78%	+3.51%

Volatility

UTES vs. FLJH - Volatility Comparison

Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF (UTES) has a higher volatility of 7.23% compared to Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF (FLJH) at 5.20%. This indicates that UTES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLJH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UTES	FLJH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.23%	5.20%	+2.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.05%	14.09%	+2.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.32%	18.44%	+2.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.62%	18.61%	+2.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.17%	19.84%	+0.33%

UTES vs. FLJH - Expense Ratio Comparison

UTES has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than FLJH's 0.09% expense ratio.

Dividends

UTES vs. FLJH - Dividend Comparison

UTES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.49%, less than FLJH's 3.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLJH Franklin FTSE Japan Hedged ETF	3.28%	3.90%	5.06%	25.59%	26.67%	1.29%	0.00%	0.00%	5.92%	0.10%	0.00%	0.00%
UTES Virtus Reaves Utilities ETF	1.49%	1.42%	1.51%	2.44%	2.13%	1.94%	2.09%	1.84%	2.09%	3.44%	3.53%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UTES and FLJH in my portfolio?

UTES and FLJH have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, UTES or FLJH?

UTES has higher volatility (7.23%) compared to FLJH (5.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, UTES dropped -35.39% vs FLJH's -31.51%.

Which ETF is better, UTES or FLJH?

On 5-year performance, FLJH leads with 20.54% vs 15.32% for UTES. On fees, FLJH is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, FLJH has been the lower-risk option at 5.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, UTES or FLJH?

Over the 5-year period, FLJH has performed better with a 20.54% return vs 15.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, UTES or FLJH?

FLJH is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for UTES.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, UTES or FLJH?

FLJH has the higher dividend yield at 3.28%, compared with 1.49% for UTES.

What is the main difference between UTES and FLJH?

UTES is categorized as Utilities Equities, while FLJH is Japan Equities. They also come from different issuers: Virtus Investment Partners and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for UTES and 0.09% for FLJH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLJH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 0.39), 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.