JANZ vs. RNWZ

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

JANZ (TrueShares Structured Outcome (January) ETF) and RNWZ (TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - JANZ is a Defined Outcome fund actively managed by TrueShares, while RNWZ is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by TrueShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, JANZ returned 16.39%/yr vs 12.56%/yr for RNWZ. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. JANZ charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RNWZ.

Performance

JANZ vs. RNWZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Structured Outcome (January) ETF (JANZ) 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, JANZ achieves a 8.83% return, which is significantly lower than RNWZ's 16.05% return.

JANZ

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 4.41%
• YTD: 8.83%
• 6M: 9.05%
• 1Y: 21.71%
• 3Y*: 16.39%
• 5Y*: 10.97%
• 10Y*: —

RNWZ

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: -4.57%
• YTD: 16.05%
• 6M: 17.19%
• 1Y: 37.97%
• 3Y*: 12.56%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

JANZ vs. RNWZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
JANZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (January) ETF	8.83%	12.47%	18.10%	19.09%	-2.60%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	16.05%	36.33%	-7.36%	-3.89%	-0.19%

Correlation

The correlation between JANZ 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	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2022	0.43

JANZ vs. RNWZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JANZ	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

JANZ vs. RNWZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

JANZ

JANZ Risk / Return Rank: 69
JANZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
JANZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
JANZ Omega Ratio Rank: 67
JANZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
JANZ Martin Ratio Rank: 74

RNWZ

RNWZ Risk / Return Rank: 79
RNWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
RNWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
RNWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 74
RNWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RNWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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.

JANZ vs. RNWZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Structured Outcome (January) ETF (JANZ) 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.

	JANZ	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.32	2.53	-0.21
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.23	3.39	-0.16
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.45	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.21	6.33	-3.12
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	14.27	15.73	-1.46
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

JANZ vs. RNWZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JANZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.32, which is comparable to the RNWZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JANZ 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

	JANZ	RNWZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.32	2.53	-0.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.94	0.61	+0.33

Drawdowns

JANZ vs. RNWZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JANZ drawdown since its inception was -18.11%, smaller than the maximum RNWZ drawdown of -24.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JANZ and RNWZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	JANZ	RNWZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.11%	-24.90%	+6.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.83%	-6.06%	-0.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.33%	-24.74%	+10.41%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.11%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-4.65%	+4.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.49%	-7.19%	+3.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.54%	2.44%	-0.90%

Volatility

JANZ vs. RNWZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for TrueShares Structured Outcome (January) ETF (JANZ) is 2.38%, while TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) has a volatility of 5.33%. This indicates that JANZ 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

	JANZ	RNWZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.38%	5.33%	-2.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.09%	11.94%	-4.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.40%	15.06%	-5.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.14%	17.00%	-3.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.98%	17.00%	-4.02%

JANZ vs. RNWZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

JANZ vs. RNWZ - Dividend Comparison

JANZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, less than RNWZ's 1.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
JANZ TrueShares Structured Outcome (January) ETF	1.31%	1.42%	2.70%	2.58%	0.21%	4.52%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	1.93%	2.12%	2.36%	3.87%	0.01%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JANZ and RNWZ in my portfolio?

JANZ 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, JANZ or RNWZ?

RNWZ has higher volatility (5.33%) compared to JANZ (2.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JANZ dropped -18.11% vs RNWZ's -24.90%.

Which ETF is better, JANZ or RNWZ?

On 3-year performance, JANZ leads with 16.39% vs 12.56% for RNWZ. On fees, RNWZ is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, JANZ has been the lower-risk option at 2.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JANZ or RNWZ?

Over the 3-year period, JANZ has performed better with a 16.39% return vs 12.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JANZ or RNWZ?

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

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

RNWZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 1.31% for JANZ.

What is the main difference between JANZ and RNWZ?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RNWZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.53 vs 2.32), 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.