JUST vs. LRNZ

Last updated Jul 9, 2026

JUST (Goldman Sachs JUST U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF) and LRNZ (TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. JUST is passively managed, while LRNZ is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, JUST returned 12.31%/yr vs 5.92%/yr for LRNZ. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. JUST charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.68%/yr for LRNZ.

Performance

JUST vs. LRNZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs JUST U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF (JUST) and TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JUST achieves a 10.86% return, which is significantly lower than LRNZ's 29.74% return.

JUST

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 1.15%
• 6M: 9.61%
• YTD: 10.86%
• 1Y: 22.02%
• 3Y*: 20.97%
• 5Y*: 12.31%
• 10Y*: —

LRNZ

• 1D: 0.18%
• 1M: 7.01%
• 6M: 26.17%
• YTD: 29.74%
• 1Y: 39.02%
• 3Y*: 25.23%
• 5Y*: 5.92%
• 10Y*: —

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

JUST vs. LRNZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
JUST Goldman Sachs JUST U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF	10.86%	17.60%	23.73%	24.86%	-17.88%	26.89%	30.80%
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	29.74%	22.27%	2.01%	67.11%	-51.46%	-0.96%	90.52%

Correlation

The correlation between JUST and LRNZ is 0.64, 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	0.64
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.73
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 2, 2020	0.67

The correlation between JUST and LRNZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

JUST vs. LRNZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	JUST	LRNZ
Technology	37.6%	82.1%
Financial Services	12.7%	-
Healthcare	9.2%	15.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	-
Industrials	8.3%	-
Communication Services	8.1%	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	-
Energy	3.2%	-
Utilities	2.6%	-
Basic Materials	2.1%	-
Real Estate	2.0%	-

Return for Risk

JUST vs. LRNZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

JUST

JUST Risk / Return Rank: 67
JUST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
JUST Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
JUST Omega Ratio Rank: 65
JUST Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
JUST Martin Ratio Rank: 74

LRNZ

LRNZ Risk / Return Rank: 37
LRNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
LRNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
LRNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 39
LRNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
LRNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

JUST vs. LRNZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs JUST U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF (JUST) 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.

	JUST	LRNZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.78	1.27	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	1.82	+0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.22	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.52	1.46	+1.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.07	3.52	+7.55

JUST vs. LRNZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JUST Sharpe Ratio is 1.78, which is higher than the LRNZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JUST and LRNZ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

JUST vs. LRNZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JUST drawdown since its inception was -33.83%, smaller than the maximum LRNZ drawdown of -61.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JUST and LRNZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	JUST	LRNZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.83%	-61.33%	+27.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.76%	-26.89%	+18.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.34%	-33.10%	+13.76%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.72%	-61.33%	+36.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.44%	-4.18%	+2.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.07%	-26.35%	+21.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.99%	11.11%	-9.12%

Volatility

JUST vs. LRNZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs JUST U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF (JUST) is 3.97%, while TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) has a volatility of 10.14%. This indicates that JUST experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LRNZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	JUST	LRNZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.97%	10.14%	-6.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.87%	25.34%	-15.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.41%	30.93%	-18.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.87%	37.55%	-20.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.07%	37.67%	-18.60%

JUST vs. LRNZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

JUST has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than LRNZ's 0.68% expense ratio.

Dividends

JUST vs. LRNZ - Dividend Comparison

JUST's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.96%, while LRNZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
JUST Goldman Sachs JUST U.S. Large Cap Equity ETF	0.96%	1.02%	1.11%	1.37%	1.51%	1.07%	1.36%	1.86%	1.11%
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both JUST and LRNZ in my portfolio?

JUST and LRNZ have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, JUST or LRNZ?

LRNZ has higher volatility (10.14%) compared to JUST (3.97%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JUST dropped -33.83% vs LRNZ's -61.33%.

Which ETF is better, JUST or LRNZ?

On 5-year performance, JUST leads with 12.31% vs 5.92% for LRNZ. On fees, JUST is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, JUST has been the lower-risk option at 3.97%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, JUST or LRNZ?

Over the 5-year period, JUST has performed better with a 12.31% return vs 5.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, JUST or LRNZ?

JUST is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for LRNZ.

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

JUST has the higher dividend yield at 0.96%, compared with 0.00% for LRNZ.

What is the main difference between JUST and LRNZ?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and TrueMark Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for JUST and 0.68% for LRNZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

JUST currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs 1.27), 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.