LCTU vs. IQSZ

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

LCTU (BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF) and IQSZ (Invesco Global Equity Net Zero ETF) are both ESG funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LCTU returned 20.56% vs 28.75% for IQSZ. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LCTU charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IQSZ.

Performance

LCTU vs. IQSZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and Invesco Global Equity Net Zero ETF (IQSZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCTU achieves a 9.64% return, which is significantly lower than IQSZ's 13.58% return.

LCTU

• 1D: -0.41%
• 1M: 0.99%
• 6M: 8.15%
• YTD: 9.64%
• 1Y: 20.56%
• 3Y*: 19.06%
• 5Y*: 12.02%
• 10Y*: —

IQSZ

• 1D: -0.78%
• 1M: -0.86%
• 6M: 10.99%
• YTD: 13.58%
• 1Y: 28.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LCTU vs. IQSZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	9.64%	10.31%
IQSZ Invesco Global Equity Net Zero ETF	13.58%	13.36%

Correlation

The correlation between LCTU and IQSZ is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 16, 2025	0.93

The correlation between LCTU and IQSZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LCTU vs. IQSZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCTU

LCTU Risk / Return Rank: 60
LCTU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
LCTU Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
LCTU Omega Ratio Rank: 60
LCTU Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
LCTU Martin Ratio Rank: 66

IQSZ

IQSZ Risk / Return Rank: 79
IQSZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
IQSZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
IQSZ Omega Ratio Rank: 77
IQSZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
IQSZ Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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. IQSZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) and Invesco Global Equity Net Zero ETF (IQSZ). 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.

	LCTU	IQSZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.62	2.05	-0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.25	2.82	-0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.36	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.20	3.17	-0.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.38	13.42	-4.03

LCTU vs. IQSZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCTU Sharpe Ratio is 1.62, which is comparable to the IQSZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCTU and IQSZ, 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

LCTU vs. IQSZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCTU drawdown since its inception was -25.93%, which is greater than IQSZ's maximum drawdown of -9.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCTU and IQSZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCTU	IQSZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.93%	-9.12%	-16.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.38%	-9.12%	-0.26%
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	-0.41%	-1.16%	+0.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.21%	-1.24%	-4.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.20%	2.15%	+0.05%

Volatility

LCTU vs. IQSZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) is 3.00%, while Invesco Global Equity Net Zero ETF (IQSZ) has a volatility of 3.76%. This indicates that LCTU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IQSZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCTU	IQSZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.00%	3.76%	-0.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.15%	11.82%	-1.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.76%	14.07%	-1.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.23%	14.07%	+3.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.95%	14.07%	+2.88%

LCTU vs. IQSZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCTU has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than IQSZ's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

LCTU vs. IQSZ - Dividend Comparison

LCTU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.95%, less than IQSZ's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
IQSZ Invesco Global Equity Net Zero ETF	1.77%	1.03%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	0.95%	1.02%	1.27%	1.46%	1.63%	2.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCTU and IQSZ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, LCTU and IQSZ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, LCTU or IQSZ?

IQSZ has higher volatility (3.76%) compared to LCTU (3.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCTU dropped -25.93% vs IQSZ's -9.12%.

Which ETF is better, LCTU or IQSZ?

On 1-year performance, IQSZ leads with 28.75% vs 20.56% for LCTU. On fees, LCTU is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, LCTU has been the lower-risk option at 3.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCTU or IQSZ?

Over the 1-year period, IQSZ has performed better with a 28.75% return vs 20.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCTU or IQSZ?

LCTU is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for IQSZ.

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

IQSZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.95% for LCTU.

What is the main difference between LCTU and IQSZ?

They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LCTU and 0.19% for IQSZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQSZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.62), 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.