ABOT vs. LRNZ

Last updated Jul 28, 2026

ABOT (Abacus FCF Innovation Leaders ETF) and LRNZ (TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ABOT is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the FCF US Quality Innovation Index, while LRNZ is a Artificial Intelligence fund actively managed by TrueMark Investments. ABOT is passively managed, while LRNZ is actively managed. Their -0.38 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. ABOT charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for LRNZ.

Performance

ABOT vs. LRNZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Abacus FCF Innovation Leaders ETF (ABOT) and TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

ABOT

• 1D: 2.30%
• 1M: 6.06%
• 6M: 7.53%
• YTD: 3.40%
• 1Y: 2.78%
• 3Y*: 15.94%
• 5Y*: 8.30%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.39%

LRNZ

• 1D: -0.66%
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ABOT Abacus FCF Innovation Leaders ETF	$16.44K	$16.85K	$12.49K
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	$128.46K	$142.74K	$142.74K

ABOT vs. LRNZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
ABOT Abacus FCF Innovation Leaders ETF	-0.96%
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	-9.01%

Correlation

The correlation between ABOT and LRNZ is -0.38, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2026	-0.38

Return for Risk

ABOT vs. LRNZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

ABOT

ABOT Risk / Return Rank: 13
ABOT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
ABOT Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
ABOT Omega Ratio Rank: 13
ABOT Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
ABOT Martin Ratio Rank: 13

LRNZ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

ABOT vs. LRNZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF Innovation Leaders ETF (ABOT) and TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ). 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.

	ABOT	LRNZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.15	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.33	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.13	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.30	—	—

Drawdowns

ABOT vs. LRNZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ABOT drawdown since its inception was -29.71%, which is greater than LRNZ's maximum drawdown of -9.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABOT and LRNZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	ABOT	LRNZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.71%	-9.01%	-20.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.54%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.72%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.71%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.53%	-9.01%	+5.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.39%	-4.66%	-4.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.28%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	ABOT	LRNZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.81%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.77%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.83%	25.85%	-7.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.87%	25.85%	-5.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.74%	25.85%	-6.11%

ABOT vs. LRNZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

ABOT has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than LRNZ's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

ABOT vs. LRNZ - Dividend Comparison

ABOT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.33%, while LRNZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
ABOT Abacus FCF Innovation Leaders ETF	0.33%	0.38%	1.28%	0.77%	1.20%	4.77%	0.02%
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ABOT and LRNZ in my portfolio?

ABOT and LRNZ have a correlation of -0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ABOT or LRNZ?

On fees, ABOT is cheaper at 0.39% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ABOT or LRNZ?

ABOT is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for LRNZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ABOT or LRNZ?

ABOT has the higher dividend yield at 0.33%, compared with 0.00% for LRNZ.

What is the main difference between ABOT and LRNZ?

ABOT is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while LRNZ is Artificial Intelligence. They also come from different issuers: Abacus and TrueMark Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ABOT and 0.68% for LRNZ.