WABF vs. FLCH

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

WABF (Western Asset Bond ETF) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - WABF is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton, while FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. WABF is actively managed, while FLCH is passively managed. Over the past year, WABF returned 6.00% vs 11.26% for FLCH. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. WABF charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

WABF vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Western Asset Bond ETF (WABF) 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, WABF achieves a 0.32% return, which is significantly higher than FLCH's -4.71% return.

WABF

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 0.08%
• YTD: 0.32%
• 6M: 0.47%
• 1Y: 6.00%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLCH

• 1D: 2.58%
• 1M: -1.61%
• YTD: -4.71%
• 6M: -6.63%
• 1Y: 11.26%
• 3Y*: 11.28%
• 5Y*: -4.43%
• 10Y*: —

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

WABF vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
WABF Western Asset Bond ETF	0.32%	7.92%	1.30%	6.81%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-4.71%	32.55%	18.00%	-2.76%

Correlation

The correlation between WABF and FLCH is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2023	0.11

WABF vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	WABF	FLCH
Financial Services	3.9%	18.2%
Energy	1.5%	3.7%
Communication Services	1.0%	14.2%
Healthcare	0.6%	5.3%
Technology	0.4%	12.9%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	23.4%
Consumer Defensive	0.2%	3.3%
Industrials	0.2%	9.1%
Utilities	0.2%	2.0%
Basic Materials	0.1%	5.5%
Real Estate	-	1.7%

Return for Risk

WABF vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

WABF

WABF Risk / Return Rank: 42
WABF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
WABF Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
WABF Omega Ratio Rank: 45
WABF Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
WABF Martin Ratio Rank: 37

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 18
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 18
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

WABF vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Western Asset Bond ETF (WABF) 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.

	WABF	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	0.59	+0.98
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.36	0.95	+1.41
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.12	+0.17
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.90	0.78	+1.12
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.88	1.65	+4.23
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

WABF vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WABF Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is higher than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of 0.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WABF 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	WABF	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.57	0.59	+0.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.15	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.01	0.03	+0.99

Drawdowns

WABF vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WABF drawdown since its inception was -5.36%, smaller than the maximum FLCH drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WABF and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	WABF	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.36%	-62.09%	+56.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.03%	-15.52%	+12.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-25.43%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-55.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.50%	-32.83%	+31.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.51%	-30.53%	+29.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.98%	7.32%	-6.34%

Volatility

WABF vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Western Asset Bond ETF (WABF) is 1.12%, while Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) has a volatility of 6.40%. This indicates that WABF 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

	WABF	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.12%	6.40%	-5.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.49%	13.58%	-11.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.85%	19.16%	-15.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	6.02%	29.60%	-23.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.02%	27.91%	-21.89%

WABF vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

WABF has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

WABF vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

WABF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.13%, more than FLCH's 2.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.48%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
WABF Western Asset Bond ETF	5.13%	5.67%	6.25%	1.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both WABF and FLCH in my portfolio?

WABF and FLCH have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, WABF or FLCH?

FLCH has higher volatility (6.40%) compared to WABF (1.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WABF dropped -5.36% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, WABF or FLCH?

On 1-year performance, FLCH leads with 11.26% vs 6.00% for WABF. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, WABF has been the lower-risk option at 1.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, WABF or FLCH?

Over the 1-year period, FLCH has performed better with a 11.26% return vs 6.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, WABF or FLCH?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for WABF.

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

WABF has the higher dividend yield at 5.13%, compared with 2.48% for FLCH.

What is the main difference between WABF and FLCH?

WABF is categorized as Intermediate Core-Plus Bond, while FLCH is China Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for WABF and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WABF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 0.59), 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.