PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ESGN vs. RECS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ESGN vs. RECS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Sustainable International Equity Income ETF (ESGN) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESGN achieves a 7.02% return, which is significantly higher than RECS's 6.61% return.


ESGN

1D
-0.99%
1M
1.18%
YTD
7.02%
6M
10.22%
1Y
25.77%
3Y*
19.65%
5Y*
11.72%
10Y*

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)

ESGN vs. RECS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ESGN
Columbia Sustainable International Equity Income ETF
7.02%39.85%6.02%20.88%-5.95%10.18%-0.52%15.83%-18.30%24.88%
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 ESGN and RECS is 0.57, 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

0.57

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.58

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.65

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2016

0.55

The correlation between ESGN and RECS shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (all time) to 0.65 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ESGN vs. RECS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
ESGN
RECS

Industrials

15.8%
6.7%

Financial Services

15.4%
13.2%

Energy

13.0%
3.4%

Utilities

9.3%
2.2%

Technology

7.0%
33.6%

Consumer Cyclical

6.6%
10.6%

Healthcare

3.9%
9.9%

Consumer Defensive

3.5%
5.0%

Basic Materials

1.9%
2.1%

Communication Services

1.2%
11.0%

Real Estate

0.2%
2.3%

Industrials

ESGN
15.8%
RECS
6.7%

Financial Services

ESGN
15.4%
RECS
13.2%

Energy

ESGN
13.0%
RECS
3.4%

Utilities

ESGN
9.3%
RECS
2.2%

Technology

ESGN
7.0%
RECS
33.6%

Consumer Cyclical

ESGN
6.6%
RECS
10.6%

Healthcare

ESGN
3.9%
RECS
9.9%

Consumer Defensive

ESGN
3.5%
RECS
5.0%

Basic Materials

ESGN
1.9%
RECS
2.1%

Communication Services

ESGN
1.2%
RECS
11.0%

Real Estate

ESGN
0.2%
RECS
2.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

ESGN vs. RECS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ESGN
ESGN Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
ESGN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ESGN Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
ESGN Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
ESGN Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
ESGN Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank

RECS
RECS Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6363
Sortino Ratio Rank
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
RECS Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ESGN vs. RECS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Sustainable International Equity Income ETF (ESGN) 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.


ESGNRECSDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.93

2.13

-0.21

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.67

2.97

-0.30

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.38

-0.03

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.71

2.85

-0.14

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

9.97

12.27

-2.30

ESGN vs. RECS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESGN Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the RECS Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESGN 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ESGNRECSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.93

2.13

-0.21

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.77

0.86

-0.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.61

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

0.38

+0.23

Drawdowns

ESGN vs. RECS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESGN drawdown since its inception was -41.71%, which is greater than RECS's maximum drawdown of -34.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESGN and RECS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ESGNRECSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.71%

-34.29%

-7.42%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.56%

-8.82%

-0.74%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.38%

-18.60%

+4.22%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.51%

-22.08%

-2.43%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.29%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.77%

-0.93%

-2.84%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.06%

-1.28%

-5.78%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.59%

2.04%

+0.55%

Volatility

ESGN vs. RECS - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Sustainable International Equity Income ETF (ESGN) has a higher volatility of 3.92% compared to Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) at 2.97%. This indicates that ESGN'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ESGNRECSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.92%

2.97%

+0.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.62%

8.84%

+1.78%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.48%

11.78%

+1.70%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.30%

16.38%

-1.08%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.31%

16.22%

+0.09%

ESGN vs. RECS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESGN has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than RECS's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

ESGN vs. RECS - Dividend Comparison

ESGN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.22%, more than RECS's 1.04% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019201820172016
ESGN
Columbia Sustainable International Equity Income ETF
9.22%9.76%3.11%3.27%3.57%3.43%2.64%3.34%7.25%4.63%2.52%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions


ESGN and RECS have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ESGN has higher volatility (3.92%) compared to RECS (2.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ESGN dropped -41.71% vs RECS's -34.29%.

On 5-year performance, RECS leads with 14.04% vs 11.72% for ESGN. 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.

Over the 5-year period, RECS has performed better with a 14.04% return vs 11.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for ESGN.

ESGN has the higher dividend yield at 9.22%, compared with 1.04% for RECS.

ESGN is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while RECS is Large Cap Growth Equities. ESGN tracks MSCI Beta ADV Sust Intl Equity Income 100, while RECS tracks Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for ESGN and 0.15% for RECS.

RECS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.93), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ESGN and RECS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer