CZA vs. RUNN

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN).

CZA and RUNN are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CZA is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index. It was launched on Apr 2, 2007. RUNN is an actively managed fund by Running Oak Capital. It was launched on Jun 7, 2023.

Performance

CZA vs. RUNN - Performance Comparison

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

CZA vs. RUNN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	0.36%	8.31%	12.14%	9.05%
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	-2.84%	2.30%	17.16%	12.05%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 0.36% return, which is significantly higher than RUNN's -2.84% return.

CZA

• 1D: 0.96%
• 1M: -6.03%
• YTD: 0.36%
• 6M: 2.80%
• 1Y: 8.65%
• 3Y*: 9.92%
• 5Y*: 6.98%
• 10Y*: 10.03%

RUNN

• 1D: 0.57%
• 1M: -6.32%
• YTD: -2.84%
• 6M: -5.00%
• 1Y: 0.31%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CZA vs. RUNN - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than RUNN's 0.58% expense ratio.

CZA

Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF

RUNN

Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF

Return for Risk

CZA vs. RUNN — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 27
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 25
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 31

RUNN

RUNN Risk / Return Rank: 12
RUNN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
RUNN Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
RUNN Omega Ratio Rank: 11
RUNN Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
RUNN Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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. RUNN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	CZA	RUNN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.49	0.02	+0.47
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.81	0.15	+0.66
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.02	+0.09
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.65	0.04	+0.61
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.74	0.11	+2.63
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. RUNN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 0.49, which is higher than the RUNN Sharpe Ratio of 0.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA and RUNN, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CZA	RUNN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49	0.02	+0.47
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.52	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	0.72	-0.26

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and RUNN is 0.90, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

CZA vs. RUNN - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.55%, more than RUNN's 0.57% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.55%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	0.57%	0.55%	0.39%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

CZA vs. RUNN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than RUNN's maximum drawdown of -16.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and RUNN.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZA	RUNN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.20%	-16.83%	-36.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.43%	-10.60%	-2.83%
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	-6.03%	-7.74%	+1.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.93%	-3.36%	-3.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.17%	3.82%	-0.65%

Volatility

CZA vs. RUNN - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) has a higher volatility of 5.16% compared to Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) at 4.42%. This indicates that CZA'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

	CZA	RUNN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.16%	4.42%	+0.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.39%	9.85%	-0.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.87%	16.68%	+1.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.12%	13.87%	+2.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.26%	13.87%	+5.39%