ECON vs. RECS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ECON (Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF) and RECS (Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ECON is a Emerging Markets Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones Emerging Markets Consumer Titans Index, while RECS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, ECON returned 6.10%/yr vs 9.89%/yr for RECS. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ECON charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for RECS.

Performance

ECON vs. RECS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF (ECON) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECON achieves a 35.02% return, which is significantly higher than RECS's 6.61% return. Over the past 10 years, ECON has underperformed RECS with an annualized return of 6.10%, while RECS has yielded a comparatively higher 9.89% annualized return.

ECON

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: 13.52%
• YTD: 35.02%
• 6M: 38.26%
• 1Y: 65.21%
• 3Y*: 23.87%
• 5Y*: 7.11%
• 10Y*: 6.10%

RECS

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 4.11%
• YTD: 6.61%
• 6M: 6.84%
• 1Y: 25.02%
• 3Y*: 21.66%
• 5Y*: 14.04%
• 10Y*: 9.89%

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

ECON vs. RECS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ECON Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF	35.02%	34.15%	0.22%	7.51%	-16.00%	-14.11%	20.83%	17.22%	-26.87%	27.46%
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	6.61%	19.30%	26.27%	23.19%	-14.39%	32.73%	15.35%	-0.93%	0.00%	0.00%

Correlation

The correlation between ECON and RECS is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.58
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.55
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2010	0.33

Over the past year, ECON and RECS have become more correlated (0.68) than their long-term average of 0.33, meaning their price movements have been converging.

ECON vs. RECS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ECON	RECS
Technology	30.4%	33.6%
Financial Services	24.5%	13.2%
Communication Services	10.2%	11.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	10.6%
Basic Materials	7.1%	2.1%
Industrials	6.5%	6.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	5.0%
Energy	3.5%	3.4%
Healthcare	2.8%	9.9%
Utilities	1.4%	2.2%
Real Estate	1.4%	2.3%

Return for Risk

ECON vs. RECS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ECON

ECON Risk / Return Rank: 88
ECON Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
ECON Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
ECON Omega Ratio Rank: 90
ECON Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
ECON Martin Ratio Rank: 86

RECS

RECS Risk / Return Rank: 62
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 62
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
RECS 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.

ECON vs. RECS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF (ECON) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS). 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.

	ECON	RECS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.22	2.13	+1.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.16	2.97	+1.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.38	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.76	2.85	+1.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.83	12.27	+5.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ECON vs. RECS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECON Sharpe Ratio is 3.22, which is higher than the RECS Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECON and RECS, 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

	ECON	RECS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.22	2.13	+1.08
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.35	0.86	-0.51
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.29	0.61	-0.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.24	0.38	-0.14

Drawdowns

ECON vs. RECS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECON drawdown since its inception was -45.37%, which is greater than RECS's maximum drawdown of -34.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECON and RECS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECON	RECS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.37%	-34.29%	-11.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.76%	-8.82%	-4.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.37%	-18.60%	+2.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.08%	-22.08%	-16.00%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.37%	-34.29%	-11.08%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.24%	-0.93%	-0.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.65%	-1.28%	-15.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.67%	2.04%	+1.63%

Volatility

ECON vs. RECS - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF (ECON) has a higher volatility of 9.10% compared to Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) at 2.97%. This indicates that ECON's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RECS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECON	RECS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.10%	2.97%	+6.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.65%	8.84%	+8.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.38%	11.78%	+8.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.28%	16.38%	+3.90%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.03%	16.22%	+4.81%

ECON vs. RECS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECON has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than RECS's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECON vs. RECS - Dividend Comparison

ECON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, more than RECS's 1.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECON Columbia Emerging Markets Consumer ETF	1.31%	1.77%	0.76%	1.57%	2.06%	1.08%	0.63%	1.68%	0.98%	0.35%	0.74%	1.10%
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	1.04%	1.11%	1.09%	1.00%	1.41%	20.64%	1.09%	0.49%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECON and RECS in my portfolio?

ECON and RECS have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ECON or RECS?

ECON has higher volatility (9.10%) compared to RECS (2.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECON dropped -45.37% vs RECS's -34.29%.

Which ETF is better, ECON or RECS?

On 10-year performance, RECS leads with 9.89% vs 6.10% for ECON. On fees, RECS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, RECS has been the lower-risk option at 2.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ECON or RECS?

Over the 10-year period, RECS has performed better with a 9.89% return vs 6.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECON or RECS?

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ECON.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ECON or RECS?

ECON has the higher dividend yield at 1.31%, compared with 1.04% for RECS.

What is the main difference between ECON and RECS?

ECON is categorized as Emerging Markets Equities, while RECS is Large Cap Growth Equities. ECON tracks Dow Jones Emerging Markets Consumer Titans Index, while RECS tracks Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ECON and 0.15% for RECS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ECON currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.22 vs 2.13), 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.