FLCH ranks 2nd and KWEB 21st of 28 funds in the China Category.
FLCH vs KWEB
FLCH −0.50pt a year
0.19%0.69%
KWEB 165.4×the volume
108K17.9M
FLCH +6.5pt
−4.1%−10.6%
FLCH vs KWEB Performance
−18.7%−42.9%
- FLCH 0.19%, better
- KWEB 0.69%
- FLCH $252M
- KWEB $4.22B
- FLCH −20.9%, better
- KWEB −39.6%
- FLCH 2.63%
- KWEB 9.22%, better
- FLCH 1112
- KWEB 46
- FLCH 108K sh
- KWEB 17.9M sh, better
- FLCH $19.38
- KWEB $22.70
ETF.net Grade
| Pillar | FLCH | KWEB |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | A100Higher | D38 |
| Mission | A87 | |
| Risk | B64Higher | F16 |
| Tradability | B62 | A77Higher |
| Holdings | B65Higher | D35 |
| Durability | A70 | A79Higher |
Rank among China funds
Same Category. FLCH and KWEB are both graded against the same 28 China funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
Our read on each fund
FLCHA
KWEBC
In short
FLCH Cheap and wide, in the best way. FLCH holds roughly a thousand Chinese stocks and charges 0.19% a year, a fraction of what most single-country China funds ask. Whole market, small toll.
KWEB China's internet giants, undiluted: roughly 30 offshore-listed names instead of a whole-market basket. Live since 2013, KWEB is the ticker traders reach for when they want to express a view on China tech.
Stated mandate
FLCH The Fund seeks investment results that closely correspond, before fees and expenses, to the performance of the FTSE China RIC Capped Index.
KWEB The Fund seeks to track, before fees and expenses, the performance of the CSI Overseas China Internet Index, which covers publicly traded China-based companies focused primarily on internet and internet-related businesses.
Why people hold it
Worth knowing
FLCH vs KWEB Holdings
How we measure overlap
Each holding counts at its smaller weight in the two funds, summed over the full Holdings. Sector, country and asset class use the same rule on each fund’s split. Cash, FX and derivative lines stay out of the counts. Two bond funds get no overlap figure.
FLCH vs KWEB Cost
Overpaying KWEB vs FLCH
$9,477
On $10,000 over 30 years. 7% growth a year before fees, expense ratio only.
FLCH 0.19%
$3,952
KWEB 0.69%
$13,429
Cost over time
Year by year
| Year | FLCH | KWEB | Overpaying |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | $347 | $1,232 | $885 |
| 20 | $1,351 | $4,697 | $3,346 |
| 30 | $3,952 | $13,429 | $9,477 |
- 0.19%FLCH, cheaper
- 0.69%KWEB
- Middle half of China funds
- Median 0.65%
FLCH cheapest of 28 funds
KWEB 17th cheapest of 28 funds
FLCH vs KWEB Dividends
- FLCH 2.63%
- KWEB 9.22%, better
- FLCH $0.51
- KWEB $2.10
- FLCH $0.14
- KWEB $2.10
- FLCH Jun 26, 2026
- KWEB Dec 22, 2025
- FLCH Jul 6, 2026
- KWEB Dec 23, 2025
- FLCH Twice a year
- KWEB Annual
Distribution history
FLCH vs KWEB Risk
Fall from peak · 5 years
- FLCH
- KWEB
Risk facts
- Volatility
- FLCH 21.1%, betterKWEB 31.1%
- Return per unit of risk
- FLCH 0.29, betterKWEB −0.03
- Worst fall
- FLCH −48.1%, betterKWEB −61.9%
- Market sensitivity
- FLCH 0.55KWEB 0.88
FLCH and KWEB in the news
Category Review
Index option income was not one bet this year






Popular comparisons
- 0.19% · 0.32%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.69% · 0.32%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.19% · 0.59%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.69% · 0.59%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.19% · 0.59%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.
- 0.69% · 0.59%
- Same Category. Both funds are graded against the same funds, so their Grades compare head to head.