FTAG vs. ERNZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FTAG (First Trust Indxx Global Agriculture ETF) and ERNZ (TrueShares Active Yield ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. FTAG is passively managed, while ERNZ is actively managed. Over the past year, FTAG returned 14.00% vs 2.28% for ERNZ. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FTAG charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for ERNZ.

Performance

FTAG vs. ERNZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Indxx Global Agriculture ETF (FTAG) and TrueShares Active Yield ETF (ERNZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FTAG achieves a 10.75% return, which is significantly higher than ERNZ's 4.89% return.

FTAG

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: -2.29%
• YTD: 10.75%
• 6M: 12.16%
• 1Y: 14.00%
• 3Y*: 5.07%
• 5Y*: 0.66%
• 10Y*: 5.24%

ERNZ

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 4.89%
• 6M: 3.58%
• 1Y: 2.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FTAG vs. ERNZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FTAG First Trust Indxx Global Agriculture ETF	10.75%	14.82%	-3.83%
ERNZ TrueShares Active Yield ETF	4.89%	-6.50%	3.43%

Correlation

The correlation between FTAG and ERNZ is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2024	0.58

The correlation between FTAG and ERNZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.58 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FTAG vs. ERNZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FTAG	ERNZ
Basic Materials	55.5%	6.1%
Industrials	24.1%	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	8.4%	8.7%
Healthcare	7.8%	5.8%
Consumer Cyclical	4.2%	10.1%
Communication Services	-	3.5%
Energy	-	23.0%
Financial Services	-	24.6%
Real Estate	-	8.7%
Technology	-	3.3%
Utilities	-	3.5%

Return for Risk

FTAG vs. ERNZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FTAG

FTAG Risk / Return Rank: 28
FTAG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
FTAG Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
FTAG Omega Ratio Rank: 26
FTAG Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
FTAG Martin Ratio Rank: 27

ERNZ

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

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.

FTAG vs. ERNZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Indxx Global Agriculture ETF (FTAG) and TrueShares Active Yield ETF (ERNZ). 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.

	FTAG	ERNZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.01	0.24	+0.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.52	0.42	+1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.05	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.52	0.22	+1.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.75	0.47	+3.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FTAG vs. ERNZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FTAG Sharpe Ratio is 1.01, which is higher than the ERNZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTAG and ERNZ, 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

	FTAG	ERNZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.01	0.24	+0.77
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.04	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.27	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.33	0.06	-0.39

Drawdowns

FTAG vs. ERNZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTAG drawdown since its inception was -90.89%, which is greater than ERNZ's maximum drawdown of -14.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTAG and ERNZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FTAG	ERNZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-90.89%	-14.16%	-76.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.25%	-10.61%	+1.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.87%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.77%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-50.79%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-78.58%	-5.59%	-72.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-71.24%	-4.58%	-66.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.74%	4.88%	-1.14%

Volatility

FTAG vs. ERNZ - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Indxx Global Agriculture ETF (FTAG) has a higher volatility of 3.47% compared to TrueShares Active Yield ETF (ERNZ) at 0.00%. This indicates that FTAG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ERNZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FTAG	ERNZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.47%	0.00%	+3.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.53%	4.40%	+6.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.93%	9.75%	+4.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.38%	11.77%	+5.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.66%	11.77%	+7.89%

FTAG vs. ERNZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FTAG has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is lower than ERNZ's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FTAG vs. ERNZ - Dividend Comparison

FTAG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, less than ERNZ's 6.37% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ERNZ TrueShares Active Yield ETF	6.37%	9.90%	5.51%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FTAG First Trust Indxx Global Agriculture ETF	1.37%	1.39%	2.89%	3.68%	1.77%	1.58%	1.72%	2.33%	2.16%	1.26%	0.61%	1.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FTAG and ERNZ in my portfolio?

FTAG and ERNZ have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FTAG or ERNZ?

FTAG has higher volatility (3.47%) compared to ERNZ (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FTAG dropped -90.89% vs ERNZ's -14.16%.

Which ETF is better, FTAG or ERNZ?

On 1-year performance, FTAG leads with 14.00% vs 2.28% for ERNZ. On fees, FTAG is cheaper at 0.70% per year. On volatility, ERNZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FTAG or ERNZ?

Over the 1-year period, FTAG has performed better with a 14.00% return vs 2.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FTAG or ERNZ?

FTAG is cheaper with a 0.70% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for ERNZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FTAG or ERNZ?

ERNZ has the higher dividend yield at 6.37%, compared with 1.37% for FTAG.

What is the main difference between FTAG and ERNZ?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and TrueShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FTAG and 0.75% for ERNZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FTAG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.01 vs 0.24), 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.