CRBN vs. HYP
CRBN (iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF) and HYP (Golden Eagle Dynamic Hypergrowth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. CRBN is passively managed, while HYP is actively managed. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CRBN charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for HYP.
Performance
CRBN vs. HYP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CRBN achieves a 11.12% return, which is significantly lower than HYP's 32.89% return.
CRBN
- 1D
- 0.18%
- 1M
- 4.24%
- YTD
- 11.12%
- 6M
- 12.10%
- 1Y
- 27.38%
- 3Y*
- 21.37%
- 5Y*
- 11.14%
- 10Y*
- 12.75%
HYP
- 1D
- 1.19%
- 1M
- 6.48%
- YTD
- 32.89%
- 6M
- 28.18%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CRBN vs. HYP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CRBN iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF | 11.12% | 3.54% |
HYP Golden Eagle Dynamic Hypergrowth ETF | 32.89% | -5.01% |
Correlation
The correlation between CRBN and HYP is 0.69, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2025 | 0.69 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CRBN vs. HYP — Risk / Return Rank
CRBN
HYP
CRBN vs. HYP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF (CRBN) and Golden Eagle Dynamic Hypergrowth ETF (HYP). 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.
| CRBN | HYP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.73 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.06 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CRBN | HYP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.11 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.70 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.76 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.70 | 0.98 | -0.28 |
Drawdowns
CRBN vs. HYP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CRBN drawdown since its inception was -33.13%, which is greater than HYP's maximum drawdown of -19.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CRBN and HYP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CRBN | HYP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.13% | -19.58% | -13.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.08% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.60% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.04% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -33.13% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.64% | -1.11% | +0.47% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.20% | -6.42% | +1.22% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.28% | — | — |
Volatility
CRBN vs. HYP - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CRBN | HYP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.67% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.52% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.05% | 40.91% | -27.86% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.09% | 40.91% | -24.82% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.90% | 40.91% | -24.01% |
CRBN vs. HYP - Expense Ratio Comparison
CRBN has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than HYP's 0.85% expense ratio.
Dividends
CRBN vs. HYP - Dividend Comparison
CRBN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.99%, more than HYP's 0.10% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CRBN iShares MSCI ACWI Low Carbon Target ETF | 1.99% | 2.21% | 1.94% | 2.01% | 1.95% | 1.57% | 1.41% | 2.27% | 2.51% | 2.05% | 2.27% | 2.01% |
HYP Golden Eagle Dynamic Hypergrowth ETF | 0.10% | 0.14% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CRBN and HYP have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CRBN is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CRBN is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for HYP.
CRBN has the higher dividend yield at 1.99%, compared with 0.10% for HYP.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Golden Eagle. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for CRBN and 0.85% for HYP.
Find the right allocation for CRBN and HYP
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer