INCE vs TYLG
Franklin Income Equity Focus ETF vs Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF
Quick Verdict
INCE has a lower expense ratio. TYLG delivered stronger 1-year returns. INCE offers more diversification with 97 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | INCE | TYLG | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.29% | 0.60% | |
| AUM | $282M | $15M | |
| Dividend Yield | 4.86% | 8.89% | |
| Holdings | 97 | 78 | |
| YTD Return | +16.64% | +21.18% | |
| 1Y Return | +23.49% | +35.64% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.60% | +23.66% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.71% | - | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.8% | 15.8% | |
| Max Drawdown | -34.1% | -24.5% | |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | Global X by mirae Asset | |
| Category | Equity | Alternative | |
| Inception | Sep 20, 2016 | Nov 21, 2022 |
INCE vs TYLG Performance
Franklin Income Equity Focus ETF (INCE) is a ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and Global X Information Technology Covered Call & Growth ETF (TYLG) is a ETF from Global X by mirae Asset. Over the past year INCE returned +23.49% while TYLG returned +35.64%. Year to date, INCE is up 16.64% versus a gain of 21.18% for TYLG.
Over three years, INCE compounded at +17.60% per year against +23.66% for TYLG. Across the full 4-year window we track, TYLG has the edge at +25.12% annualized vs +12.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TYLG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 13.8% for INCE. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -34.1% for INCE and -24.5% for TYLG. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.43. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
INCE charges 0.29% per year while TYLG charges 0.60%. On a $10,000 position that is $29 vs $60 annually, a gap of $31 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, INCE currently yields 4.86% against 8.89% for TYLG.
Holdings Overlap
INCE and TYLG share 4 holdings out of 129 unique holdings combined, representing a 2.3% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, INCE or TYLG?
INCE has an expense ratio of 0.29% while TYLG charges 0.60%. INCE is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $31 per year of difference.
Which performed better, INCE or TYLG?
Over the past year INCE returned +23.49% vs +35.64% for TYLG, so TYLG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), INCE annualized +12.55% vs +25.12% for TYLG. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, INCE or TYLG?
TYLG has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 13.8% for INCE. Worst drawdown: INCE -34.1% vs TYLG -24.5%.
Should I hold both INCE and TYLG?
INCE and TYLG have a monthly-return correlation of 0.43, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between INCE and TYLG?
INCE and TYLG share 4 common holdings with a 2.3% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 129 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, INCE or TYLG?
INCE yields 4.86% while TYLG yields 8.89%, so TYLG currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.