LCTU vs. BRTR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LCTU (BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF) and BRTR (Blackrock Total Return ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCTU is a ESG fund actively managed by BlackRock, while BRTR is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by BlackRock. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LCTU returned 26.22% vs 5.46% for BRTR. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LCTU charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for BRTR.

Performance

LCTU vs. BRTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and Blackrock Total Return ETF (BRTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCTU achieves a 9.58% return, which is significantly higher than BRTR's 0.51% return.

LCTU

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: 4.95%
• YTD: 9.58%
• 6M: 9.62%
• 1Y: 26.22%
• 3Y*: 21.43%
• 5Y*: 12.48%
• 10Y*: —

BRTR

• 1D: 0.11%
• 1M: 0.39%
• YTD: 0.51%
• 6M: 0.61%
• 1Y: 5.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LCTU vs. BRTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	9.58%	16.96%	24.00%	1.20%
BRTR Blackrock Total Return ETF	0.51%	8.11%	1.29%	0.43%

Correlation

The correlation between LCTU and BRTR is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2023	0.25

LCTU vs. BRTR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LCTU	BRTR
Technology	34.6%	6.7%
Financial Services	12.1%	22.7%
Communication Services	10.3%	23.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.3%	7.6%
Healthcare	8.8%	-
Industrials	8.7%	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	-
Energy	3.5%	25.1%
Real Estate	2.5%	2.2%
Utilities	2.5%	1.8%
Basic Materials	1.9%	8.7%

Return for Risk

LCTU vs. BRTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCTU

LCTU Risk / Return Rank: 64
LCTU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
LCTU Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
LCTU Omega Ratio Rank: 65
LCTU Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
LCTU Martin Ratio Rank: 68

BRTR

BRTR Risk / Return Rank: 40
BRTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
BRTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BRTR Omega Ratio Rank: 42
BRTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
BRTR Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

LCTU vs. BRTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and Blackrock Total Return ETF (BRTR). 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.

	LCTU	BRTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.14	1.51	+0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	2.19	+0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.27	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	1.68	+1.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.49	5.07	+7.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LCTU vs. BRTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCTU Sharpe Ratio is 2.14, which is higher than the BRTR Sharpe Ratio of 1.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCTU and BRTR, 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

	LCTU	BRTR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.14	1.51	+0.64
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.76	0.89	-0.13

Drawdowns

LCTU vs. BRTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCTU drawdown since its inception was -25.93%, which is greater than BRTR's maximum drawdown of -5.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCTU and BRTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCTU	BRTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.93%	-5.07%	-20.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.38%	-3.26%	-6.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.83%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.93%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.24%	-1.58%	+1.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.31%	-1.35%	-4.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.11%	1.08%	+1.03%

Volatility

LCTU vs. BRTR - Volatility Comparison

BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) has a higher volatility of 3.01% compared to Blackrock Total Return ETF (BRTR) at 1.27%. This indicates that LCTU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BRTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCTU	BRTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.01%	1.27%	+1.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.36%	2.77%	+6.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.30%	3.68%	+8.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.15%	4.69%	+12.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.01%	4.69%	+12.32%

LCTU vs. BRTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCTU has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than BRTR's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCTU vs. BRTR - Dividend Comparison

LCTU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, less than BRTR's 4.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BRTR Blackrock Total Return ETF	4.72%	4.86%	5.58%	0.22%	0.00%	0.00%
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	0.92%	1.02%	1.27%	1.46%	1.63%	2.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCTU and BRTR in my portfolio?

LCTU and BRTR have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCTU or BRTR?

LCTU has higher volatility (3.01%) compared to BRTR (1.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCTU dropped -25.93% vs BRTR's -5.07%.

Which ETF is better, LCTU or BRTR?

On 1-year performance, LCTU leads with 26.22% vs 5.46% for BRTR. On fees, LCTU is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, BRTR has been the lower-risk option at 1.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCTU or BRTR?

Over the 1-year period, LCTU has performed better with a 26.22% return vs 5.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCTU or BRTR?

LCTU is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for BRTR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LCTU or BRTR?

BRTR has the higher dividend yield at 4.72%, compared with 0.92% for LCTU.

What is the main difference between LCTU and BRTR?

LCTU is categorized as ESG, while BRTR is Intermediate Core-Plus Bond. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LCTU and 0.38% for BRTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LCTU currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 1.51), 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.