LCR vs. RULE

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LCR (Leuthold Core ETF) and RULE (Adaptive Core ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, LCR returned 11.32%/yr vs 20.38%/yr for RULE. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LCR charges 0.79%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for RULE.

Performance

LCR vs. RULE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leuthold Core ETF (LCR) and Adaptive Core ETF (RULE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCR achieves a 4.15% return, which is significantly lower than RULE's 45.39% return.

LCR

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 2.71%
• YTD: 4.15%
• 6M: 5.01%
• 1Y: 14.07%
• 3Y*: 11.32%
• 5Y*: 6.74%
• 10Y*: —

RULE

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 21.60%
• YTD: 45.39%
• 6M: 45.86%
• 1Y: 52.19%
• 3Y*: 20.38%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LCR vs. RULE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LCR Leuthold Core ETF	4.15%	12.43%	8.68%	12.80%	-7.58%	0.48%
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	45.39%	4.60%	7.59%	6.29%	-22.87%	1.03%

Correlation

The correlation between LCR and RULE is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2021	0.73

The correlation between LCR and RULE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

LCR vs. RULE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCR	RULE
Technology	25.7%	54.4%
Healthcare	17.5%	6.4%
Financial Services	16.7%	5.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	3.2%
Energy	8.8%	2.4%
Basic Materials	8.6%	9.0%
Industrials	6.7%	13.2%
Communication Services	6.1%	5.0%
Consumer Defensive	0.5%	0.8%
Utilities	0.1%	0.0%
Real Estate	-	0.0%

Return for Risk

LCR vs. RULE — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCR

LCR Risk / Return Rank: 55
LCR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
LCR Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
LCR Omega Ratio Rank: 56
LCR Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
LCR Martin Ratio Rank: 56

RULE

RULE Risk / Return Rank: 79
RULE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
RULE Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
RULE Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RULE Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RULE Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

LCR vs. RULE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leuthold Core ETF (LCR) and Adaptive Core ETF (RULE). 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.

	LCR	RULE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.89	2.59	-0.70
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	3.47	-0.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.46	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.35	4.15	-1.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.69	16.93	-7.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LCR vs. RULE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCR Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is comparable to the RULE Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCR and RULE, 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

	LCR	RULE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.89	2.59	-0.70
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.75	0.47	+0.28

Drawdowns

LCR vs. RULE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCR drawdown since its inception was -17.44%, smaller than the maximum RULE drawdown of -30.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCR and RULE.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCR	RULE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.44%	-30.48%	+13.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.02%	-12.65%	+6.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.59%	-20.21%	+11.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-13.40%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.28%	0.00%	-0.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.84%	-14.98%	+12.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.46%	3.09%	-1.63%

Volatility

LCR vs. RULE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Leuthold Core ETF (LCR) is 2.08%, while Adaptive Core ETF (RULE) has a volatility of 9.59%. This indicates that LCR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RULE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCR	RULE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.08%	9.59%	-7.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.98%	17.54%	-11.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.49%	20.25%	-12.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.02%	14.83%	-5.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.40%	14.83%	-3.43%

LCR vs. RULE - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCR has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is lower than RULE's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCR vs. RULE - Dividend Comparison

LCR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, while RULE has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LCR Leuthold Core ETF	1.31%	1.37%	1.86%	1.60%	0.75%	0.21%	0.62%
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.01%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCR and RULE in my portfolio?

LCR and RULE have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCR or RULE?

RULE has higher volatility (9.59%) compared to LCR (2.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCR dropped -17.44% vs RULE's -30.48%.

Which ETF is better, LCR or RULE?

On 3-year performance, RULE leads with 20.38% vs 11.32% for LCR. On fees, LCR is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, LCR has been the lower-risk option at 2.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCR or RULE?

Over the 3-year period, RULE has performed better with a 20.38% return vs 11.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCR or RULE?

LCR is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for RULE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LCR or RULE?

LCR has the higher dividend yield at 1.31%, compared with 0.00% for RULE.

What is the main difference between LCR and RULE?

They also come from different issuers: The Leuthold Group LLC and Mohr Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for LCR and 1.10% for RULE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RULE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 1.89), 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.