XDAT vs. FLCH

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

XDAT (Franklin Exponential Data ETF) and FLCH (Franklin FTSE China ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XDAT is a Technology Equities fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton, while FLCH is a China Equities fund tracking the FTSE China RIC Capped Index. XDAT is actively managed, while FLCH is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XDAT returned 1.26%/yr vs -4.93%/yr for FLCH. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XDAT charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for FLCH.

Performance

XDAT vs. FLCH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Exponential Data ETF (XDAT) 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, XDAT achieves a 0.92% return, which is significantly higher than FLCH's -6.30% return.

XDAT

• 1D: -3.31%
• 1M: 10.82%
• YTD: 0.92%
• 6M: -1.59%
• 1Y: -1.19%
• 3Y*: 12.16%
• 5Y*: 1.26%
• 10Y*: —

FLCH

• 1D: -1.68%
• 1M: -2.79%
• YTD: -6.30%
• 6M: -7.45%
• 1Y: 8.36%
• 3Y*: 10.66%
• 5Y*: -4.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

XDAT vs. FLCH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
XDAT Franklin Exponential Data ETF	0.92%	1.87%	16.54%	45.77%	-45.71%	10.86%
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	-6.30%	32.55%	18.00%	-11.21%	-22.74%	-25.54%

Correlation

The correlation between XDAT and FLCH is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.28
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 15, 2021	0.37

XDAT vs. FLCH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XDAT	FLCH
Technology	53.3%	12.9%
Communication Services	35.1%	14.2%
Real Estate	5.7%	1.7%
Financial Services	4.1%	18.2%
Healthcare	2.6%	5.3%
Consumer Cyclical	1.3%	23.4%
Industrials	0.5%	9.1%
Basic Materials	-	5.5%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.3%
Energy	-	3.7%
Utilities	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

XDAT vs. FLCH — Risk / Return Rank

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

XDAT

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

FLCH

FLCH Risk / Return Rank: 15
FLCH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
FLCH Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
FLCH Omega Ratio Rank: 15
FLCH Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
FLCH Martin Ratio Rank: 14

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.

XDAT vs. FLCH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Exponential Data ETF (XDAT) 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.

	XDAT	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.05	0.44	-0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.09	0.75	-0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.09	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	0.54	-0.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.09	1.14	-1.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XDAT vs. FLCH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XDAT Sharpe Ratio is -0.05, which is lower than the FLCH Sharpe Ratio of 0.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XDAT 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

	XDAT	FLCH	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.05	0.44	-0.49
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.04	-0.17	+0.21
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.03	0.02	+0.01

Drawdowns

XDAT vs. FLCH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XDAT drawdown since its inception was -54.87%, smaller than the maximum FLCH drawdown of -62.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XDAT and FLCH.

Drawdown Indicators

	XDAT	FLCH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-54.87%	-62.09%	+7.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-29.56%	-15.52%	-14.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.56%	-25.43%	-4.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-54.87%	-55.78%	+0.91%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.57%	-33.95%	+18.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.91%	-30.53%	+4.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.78%	7.38%	+6.40%

Volatility

XDAT vs. FLCH - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Exponential Data ETF (XDAT) has a higher volatility of 8.56% compared to Franklin FTSE China ETF (FLCH) at 6.59%. This indicates that XDAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLCH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XDAT	FLCH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.56%	6.59%	+1.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.27%	13.67%	+5.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.56%	19.22%	+4.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.45%	29.59%	-0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.43%	27.91%	+1.52%

XDAT vs. FLCH - Expense Ratio Comparison

XDAT has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FLCH's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

XDAT vs. FLCH - Dividend Comparison

XDAT has not paid dividends to shareholders, while FLCH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.52%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLCH Franklin FTSE China ETF	2.52%	2.36%	2.87%	3.47%	2.69%	1.48%	0.91%	1.98%	1.92%	0.01%
XDAT Franklin Exponential Data ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XDAT and FLCH in my portfolio?

XDAT and FLCH have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XDAT or FLCH?

XDAT has higher volatility (8.56%) compared to FLCH (6.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XDAT dropped -54.87% vs FLCH's -62.09%.

Which ETF is better, XDAT or FLCH?

On 5-year performance, XDAT leads with 1.26% vs -4.93% for FLCH. On fees, FLCH is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, FLCH has been the lower-risk option at 6.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XDAT or FLCH?

Over the 5-year period, XDAT has performed better with a 1.26% return vs -4.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XDAT or FLCH?

FLCH is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for XDAT.

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

FLCH has the higher dividend yield at 2.52%, compared with 0.00% for XDAT.

What is the main difference between XDAT and FLCH?

XDAT is categorized as Technology Equities, while FLCH is China Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for XDAT and 0.19% for FLCH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLCH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.44 vs -0.05), 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.