FEBZ vs. RNWZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FEBZ (TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF) and RNWZ (TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FEBZ is a Defined Outcome fund tracking the S&P 500 Price Index, while RNWZ is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by TrueShares. FEBZ is passively managed, while RNWZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FEBZ returned 15.79%/yr vs 12.63%/yr for RNWZ. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FEBZ charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNWZ.

Performance

FEBZ vs. RNWZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEBZ achieves a 7.99% return, which is significantly lower than RNWZ's 16.28% return.

FEBZ

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: 4.07%
• YTD: 7.99%
• 6M: 7.75%
• 1Y: 20.13%
• 3Y*: 15.79%
• 5Y*: 11.22%
• 10Y*: —

RNWZ

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -2.61%
• YTD: 16.28%
• 6M: 16.86%
• 1Y: 38.19%
• 3Y*: 12.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FEBZ vs. RNWZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	7.99%	12.97%	16.88%	20.65%	-1.07%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	16.28%	36.33%	-7.36%	-3.89%	-0.19%

Correlation

The correlation between FEBZ and RNWZ is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2022	0.43

FEBZ vs. RNWZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FEBZ	RNWZ
Technology	35.3%	-
Financial Services	13.4%	6.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	-
Communication Services	9.9%	-
Healthcare	8.8%	-
Industrials	7.8%	5.3%
Consumer Defensive	5.2%	-
Energy	3.0%	3.8%
Utilities	2.5%	41.0%
Real Estate	2.0%	3.2%
Basic Materials	1.6%	4.5%

Return for Risk

FEBZ vs. RNWZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FEBZ

FEBZ Risk / Return Rank: 65
FEBZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
FEBZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
FEBZ Omega Ratio Rank: 66
FEBZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
FEBZ Martin Ratio Rank: 67

RNWZ

RNWZ Risk / Return Rank: 80
RNWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RNWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RNWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RNWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RNWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

FEBZ vs. RNWZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) and TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ). 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.

	FEBZ	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	2.55	-0.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	3.40	-0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.45	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	6.33	-3.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.21	15.60	-3.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FEBZ vs. RNWZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEBZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is comparable to the RNWZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEBZ and RNWZ, 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

	FEBZ	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.17	2.55	-0.38
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	0.61	+0.39

Drawdowns

FEBZ vs. RNWZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEBZ drawdown since its inception was -17.50%, smaller than the maximum RNWZ drawdown of -24.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEBZ and RNWZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEBZ	RNWZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.50%	-24.90%	+7.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.14%	-6.06%	-1.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.68%	-24.74%	+10.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.50%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.49%	-4.46%	+3.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.32%	-7.19%	+3.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.65%	2.45%	-0.80%

Volatility

FEBZ vs. RNWZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF (FEBZ) is 2.29%, while TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) has a volatility of 5.06%. This indicates that FEBZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RNWZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEBZ	RNWZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.29%	5.06%	-2.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.09%	11.86%	-4.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.34%	15.06%	-5.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.47%	16.99%	-4.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.35%	16.99%	-4.64%

FEBZ vs. RNWZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEBZ has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than RNWZ's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEBZ vs. RNWZ - Dividend Comparison

FEBZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, more than RNWZ's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FEBZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (February) ETF	2.96%	3.20%	3.88%	6.81%	0.00%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	1.93%	2.12%	2.36%	3.87%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEBZ and RNWZ in my portfolio?

FEBZ and RNWZ have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FEBZ or RNWZ?

RNWZ has higher volatility (5.06%) compared to FEBZ (2.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FEBZ dropped -17.50% vs RNWZ's -24.90%.

Which ETF is better, FEBZ or RNWZ?

On 3-year performance, FEBZ leads with 15.79% vs 12.63% for RNWZ. On fees, RNWZ is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, FEBZ has been the lower-risk option at 2.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FEBZ or RNWZ?

Over the 3-year period, FEBZ has performed better with a 15.79% return vs 12.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEBZ or RNWZ?

RNWZ is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for FEBZ.

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

FEBZ has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 1.93% for RNWZ.

What is the main difference between FEBZ and RNWZ?

FEBZ is categorized as Defined Outcome, while RNWZ is Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for FEBZ and 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RNWZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 2.17), 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.