FEBZ vs. LRNZ

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FEBZ (TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF) and LRNZ (TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FEBZ is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500 Price Index, while LRNZ is a Artificial Intelligence fund actively managed by TrueShares. FEBZ is passively managed, while LRNZ is actively managed. Their 0.55 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FEBZ charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for LRNZ.

Performance

FEBZ vs. LRNZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) and TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FEBZ

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: 1.22%
• 6M: 6.89%
• YTD: 8.27%
• 1Y: 16.38%
• 3Y*: 14.62%
• 5Y*: 10.57%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.98%

LRNZ

• 1D: 1.50%
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	$288.75K	$138.93K	$218.46K
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	$105.88K	$133.30K	$133.30K

FEBZ vs. LRNZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	0.64%
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	-4.80%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBZ and LRNZ is 0.55, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2026	0.55

Return for Risk

FEBZ vs. LRNZ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FEBZ

FEBZ Risk / Return Rank: 63
FEBZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FEBZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
FEBZ Omega Ratio Rank: 61
FEBZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
FEBZ Martin Ratio Rank: 68

LRNZ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FEBZ vs. LRNZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) and TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	FEBZ	LRNZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.65	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.31	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.30	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.19	—	—

Drawdowns

FEBZ vs. LRNZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBZ drawdown since its inception was -17.50%, which is greater than LRNZ's maximum drawdown of -11.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBZ and LRNZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBZ	LRNZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.50%	-11.91%	-5.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.14%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.50%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.23%	-4.80%	+4.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.27%	-5.70%	+2.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.79%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FEBZ	LRNZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.00%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.72%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.97%	33.99%	-24.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.55%	33.99%	-21.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.32%	33.99%	-21.67%

FEBZ vs. LRNZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBZ has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than LRNZ's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEBZ vs. LRNZ - Dividend Comparison

FEBZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.95%, while LRNZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	2.95%	3.20%	3.88%	6.81%
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBZ and LRNZ in my portfolio?

FEBZ and LRNZ have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FEBZ or LRNZ?

On fees, LRNZ is cheaper at 0.68% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBZ or LRNZ?

LRNZ is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for FEBZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FEBZ or LRNZ?

FEBZ has the higher dividend yield at 2.95%, compared with 0.00% for LRNZ.

What is the main difference between FEBZ and LRNZ?

FEBZ is categorized as Defined Outcome, while LRNZ is Artificial Intelligence. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for FEBZ and 0.68% for LRNZ.