CZA vs. LSAF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and LSAF (LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - CZA tracks the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index while LSAF tracks the AlphaFactor US Core Equity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CZA returned 6.64%/yr vs 9.83%/yr for LSAF. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LSAF.

Performance

CZA vs. LSAF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF). 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 lower than LSAF's 12.50% 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%

LSAF

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 4.14%
• YTD: 12.50%
• 6M: 13.20%
• 1Y: 23.97%
• 3Y*: 19.85%
• 5Y*: 9.83%
• 10Y*: —

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

CZA vs. LSAF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	5.97%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.91%	27.42%	0.35%	32.27%	-12.29%
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	12.50%	12.01%	18.09%	15.48%	-13.12%	22.75%	6.92%	28.35%	-15.47%

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and LSAF is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 3, 2018	0.89

The correlation between CZA and LSAF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

CZA vs. LSAF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CZA	LSAF
Financial Services	23.8%	17.2%
Industrials	16.0%	15.4%
Healthcare	12.6%	9.3%
Utilities	10.6%	0.9%
Real Estate	10.5%	2.2%
Technology	10.5%	16.4%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	22.5%
Basic Materials	4.2%	3.1%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	7.3%
Energy	0.8%	5.6%
Communication Services	-	1.0%

Return for Risk

CZA vs. LSAF — 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

LSAF

LSAF Risk / Return Rank: 57
LSAF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
LSAF Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
LSAF Omega Ratio Rank: 46
LSAF Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
LSAF Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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. LSAF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF). 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	LSAF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	1.67	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.59	2.48	-0.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.29	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.44	3.66	-2.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.48	11.96	-6.48
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. LSAF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is lower than the LSAF Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA and LSAF, 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	LSAF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.04	1.67	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	0.54	-0.12
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	0.47	0.00

Drawdowns

CZA vs. LSAF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than LSAF's maximum drawdown of -41.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and LSAF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZA	LSAF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.20%	-41.67%	-11.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.21%	-6.58%	-2.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	-20.26%	+1.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.92%	-24.94%	+6.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-0.12%	-0.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.88%	-6.33%	-0.55%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.41%	2.01%	+0.40%

Volatility

CZA vs. LSAF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is 3.13%, while LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) has a volatility of 3.74%. This indicates that CZA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LSAF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CZA	LSAF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.13%	3.74%	-0.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.30%	10.27%	-0.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.78%	14.42%	-1.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	18.39%	-2.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.28%	21.88%	-2.60%

CZA vs. LSAF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is lower than LSAF's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZA vs. LSAF - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than LSAF's 0.61% 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%
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	0.61%	0.69%	0.42%	0.84%	0.96%	0.37%	0.53%	0.71%	0.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CZA and LSAF in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, CZA and LSAF move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, CZA or LSAF?

LSAF has higher volatility (3.74%) compared to CZA (3.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs LSAF's -41.67%.

Which ETF is better, CZA or LSAF?

On 5-year performance, LSAF leads with 9.83% vs 6.64% for CZA. On fees, CZA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CZA has been the lower-risk option at 3.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZA or LSAF?

Over the 5-year period, LSAF has performed better with a 9.83% return vs 6.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZA or LSAF?

CZA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LSAF.

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

CZA has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.61% for LSAF.

What is the main difference between CZA and LSAF?

CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while LSAF tracks AlphaFactor US Core Equity Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Redwood. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CZA and 0.75% for LSAF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LSAF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.67 vs 1.04), 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.