CZA vs. FLDZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and FLDZ (RiverNorth Patriot ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. CZA is passively managed, while FLDZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CZA returned 12.55%/yr vs 13.19%/yr for FLDZ. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for FLDZ.

Performance

CZA vs. FLDZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 5.97% return, which is significantly higher than FLDZ's 4.32% return.

CZA

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 1.90%
• YTD: 5.97%
• 6M: 6.65%
• 1Y: 13.18%
• 3Y*: 12.55%
• 5Y*: 6.64%
• 10Y*: 10.10%

FLDZ

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 4.32%
• 6M: 3.13%
• 1Y: 8.06%
• 3Y*: 13.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CZA vs. FLDZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	5.97%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.39%
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	4.32%	6.66%	15.99%	12.15%	-11.99%

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and FLDZ is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 4, 2022	0.92

The correlation between CZA and FLDZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

CZA vs. FLDZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CZA	FLDZ
Financial Services	23.8%	15.1%
Industrials	16.0%	12.1%
Healthcare	12.6%	11.7%
Utilities	10.6%	11.9%
Real Estate	10.5%	8.3%
Technology	10.5%	3.4%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	14.8%
Basic Materials	4.2%	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	4.8%
Energy	0.8%	11.5%
Communication Services	-	4.6%

Return for Risk

CZA vs. FLDZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 30
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 27
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 36

FLDZ

FLDZ Risk / Return Rank: 24
FLDZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FLDZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FLDZ Omega Ratio Rank: 20
FLDZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FLDZ Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

CZA vs. FLDZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ). 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.

	CZA	FLDZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	0.72	+0.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.59	1.10	+0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.13	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.44	1.30	+0.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.48	3.94	+1.54
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CZA vs. FLDZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is higher than the FLDZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA and FLDZ, 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

	CZA	FLDZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.04	0.72	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.34	+0.14

Drawdowns

CZA vs. FLDZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than FLDZ's maximum drawdown of -19.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and FLDZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZA	FLDZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.20%	-19.54%	-33.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.21%	-6.25%	-2.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	-17.43%	-1.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-1.72%	+0.94%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.88%	-5.98%	-0.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.41%	2.05%	+0.36%

Volatility

CZA vs. FLDZ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) has a higher volatility of 3.13% compared to RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) at 2.57%. This indicates that CZA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLDZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CZA	FLDZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.13%	2.57%	+0.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.30%	7.63%	+1.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.78%	11.31%	+1.47%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	16.91%	-0.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.28%	16.91%	+2.37%

CZA vs. FLDZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than FLDZ's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZA vs. FLDZ - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, which matches FLDZ's 1.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.47%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	1.48%	1.54%	1.17%	1.39%	1.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CZA and FLDZ in my portfolio?

CZA and FLDZ have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CZA or FLDZ?

CZA has higher volatility (3.13%) compared to FLDZ (2.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs FLDZ's -19.54%.

Which ETF is better, CZA or FLDZ?

On 3-year performance, FLDZ leads with 13.19% vs 12.55% for CZA. On fees, CZA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, FLDZ has been the lower-risk option at 2.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZA or FLDZ?

Over the 3-year period, FLDZ has performed better with a 13.19% return vs 12.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZA or FLDZ?

CZA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for FLDZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CZA or FLDZ?

FLDZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.48%, compared with 1.47% for CZA.

What is the main difference between CZA and FLDZ?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and RiverNorth. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CZA and 0.77% for FLDZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CZA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.04 vs 0.72), 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.