CVMC vs. RUNN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CVMC (Calvert US Mid-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF) and RUNN (Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. CVMC is passively managed, while RUNN is actively managed. Over the past year, CVMC returned 25.78% vs -1.91% for RUNN. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CVMC charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for RUNN.

Performance

CVMC vs. RUNN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Calvert US Mid-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF (CVMC) and Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CVMC achieves a 15.51% return, which is significantly higher than RUNN's -3.00% return.

CVMC

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 6.27%
• YTD: 15.51%
• 6M: 15.72%
• 1Y: 25.78%
• 3Y*: 16.44%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RUNN

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: -1.22%
• YTD: -3.00%
• 6M: -3.15%
• 1Y: -1.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CVMC vs. RUNN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CVMC Calvert US Mid-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF	15.51%	9.52%	12.57%	9.75%
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	-3.00%	2.30%	17.16%	12.05%

Correlation

The correlation between CVMC and RUNN is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2023	0.88

The correlation between CVMC and RUNN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

CVMC vs. RUNN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CVMC	RUNN
Technology	20.9%	17.8%
Industrials	20.6%	39.4%
Financial Services	13.1%	12.8%
Healthcare	10.1%	13.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	8.3%
Real Estate	7.1%	-
Utilities	6.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	-
Communication Services	2.9%	2.1%
Basic Materials	2.6%	2.0%
Energy	1.1%	-

Return for Risk

CVMC vs. RUNN — Risk / Return Rank

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

CVMC

CVMC Risk / Return Rank: 57
CVMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
CVMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
CVMC Omega Ratio Rank: 53
CVMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
CVMC Martin Ratio Rank: 62

RUNN

RUNN Risk / Return Rank: 7
RUNN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
RUNN Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
RUNN Omega Ratio Rank: 7
RUNN Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
RUNN Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

CVMC vs. RUNN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Calvert US Mid-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF (CVMC) and Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN). 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.

	CVMC	RUNN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.86	-0.15	+2.01
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	-0.13	+2.87
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	0.99	+0.34
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.77	-0.19	+2.96
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.15	-0.44	+11.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CVMC vs. RUNN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CVMC Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is higher than the RUNN Sharpe Ratio of -0.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CVMC and RUNN, 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

	CVMC	RUNN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.86	-0.15	+2.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.77	0.68	+0.10

Drawdowns

CVMC vs. RUNN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CVMC drawdown since its inception was -22.53%, which is greater than RUNN's maximum drawdown of -16.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CVMC and RUNN.

Drawdown Indicators

	CVMC	RUNN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.53%	-16.83%	-5.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.35%	-10.34%	+0.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.53%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.01%	-7.89%	+7.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.18%	-3.54%	-0.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.32%	4.34%	-2.02%

Volatility

CVMC vs. RUNN - Volatility Comparison

Calvert US Mid-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF (CVMC) has a higher volatility of 3.95% compared to Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) at 3.57%. This indicates that CVMC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RUNN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CVMC	RUNN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.95%	3.57%	+0.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.51%	9.70%	+0.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.93%	12.85%	+1.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.46%	13.81%	+2.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.46%	13.81%	+2.65%

CVMC vs. RUNN - Expense Ratio Comparison

CVMC has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than RUNN's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

CVMC vs. RUNN - Dividend Comparison

CVMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.17%, more than RUNN's 0.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CVMC Calvert US Mid-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF	1.17%	1.39%	1.21%	1.00%
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	0.57%	0.55%	0.39%	0.33%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CVMC and RUNN in my portfolio?

CVMC and RUNN have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CVMC or RUNN?

CVMC has higher volatility (3.95%) compared to RUNN (3.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CVMC dropped -22.53% vs RUNN's -16.83%.

Which ETF is better, CVMC or RUNN?

On 1-year performance, CVMC leads with 25.78% vs -1.91% for RUNN. On fees, CVMC is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, RUNN has been the lower-risk option at 3.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CVMC or RUNN?

Over the 1-year period, CVMC has performed better with a 25.78% return vs -1.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CVMC or RUNN?

CVMC is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for RUNN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CVMC or RUNN?

CVMC has the higher dividend yield at 1.17%, compared with 0.57% for RUNN.

What is the main difference between CVMC and RUNN?

They also come from different issuers: Calvert and Running Oak Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for CVMC and 0.58% for RUNN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CVMC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 vs -0.15), 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.