LCTU vs. KLMN

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

LCTU (BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF) and KLMN (Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCTU is a ESG fund actively managed by BlackRock, while KLMN is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI Global Climate 500 North America Selection Index. LCTU is actively managed, while KLMN is passively managed. Over the past year, LCTU returned 20.43% vs 21.80% for KLMN. With a 0.98 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. LCTU charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for KLMN.

Performance

LCTU vs. KLMN - 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 MSCI North America Climate ETF (KLMN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCTU achieves a 6.58% return, which is significantly lower than KLMN's 7.96% return.

LCTU

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -0.89%
• YTD: 6.58%
• 6M: 5.24%
• 1Y: 20.43%
• 3Y*: 19.60%
• 5Y*: 11.54%
• 10Y*: —

KLMN

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: -1.28%
• YTD: 7.96%
• 6M: 6.60%
• 1Y: 21.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LCTU vs. KLMN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	6.58%	16.96%	-2.58%
KLMN Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF	7.96%	18.24%	-3.62%

Correlation

The correlation between LCTU and KLMN is 0.97 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2024	0.98

The correlation between LCTU and KLMN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

LCTU vs. KLMN — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCTU

LCTU Risk / Return Rank: 53
LCTU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
LCTU Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
LCTU Omega Ratio Rank: 51
LCTU Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
LCTU Martin Ratio Rank: 60

KLMN

KLMN Risk / Return Rank: 60
KLMN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
KLMN Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
KLMN Omega Ratio Rank: 57
KLMN Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
KLMN Martin Ratio Rank: 67

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. KLMN - 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 MSCI North America Climate ETF (KLMN). 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	KLMN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	1.73	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.23	2.40	-0.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.31	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.19	2.44	-0.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.41	10.66	-1.25

LCTU vs. KLMN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCTU Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is comparable to the KLMN Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCTU and KLMN, 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. KLMN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCTU drawdown since its inception was -25.93%, which is greater than KLMN's maximum drawdown of -19.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCTU and KLMN.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCTU	KLMN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.93%	-19.16%	-6.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.38%	-8.96%	-0.42%
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	-2.98%	-3.29%	+0.31%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.27%	-2.52%	-3.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.18%	2.05%	+0.13%

Volatility

LCTU vs. KLMN - Volatility Comparison

BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF (LCTU) has a higher volatility of 4.57% compared to Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF (KLMN) at 4.35%. This indicates that LCTU's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than KLMN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCTU	KLMN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.57%	4.35%	+0.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.08%	9.86%	+0.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.79%	12.67%	+0.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.23%	17.58%	-0.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.03%	17.58%	-0.55%

LCTU vs. KLMN - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCTU has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than KLMN's 0.09% expense ratio. However, 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. KLMN - Dividend Comparison

LCTU's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, less than KLMN's 1.23% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
KLMN Invesco MSCI North America Climate ETF	1.23%	1.25%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LCTU BlackRock U.S. Carbon Transition Readiness ETF	0.98%	1.02%	1.27%	1.46%	1.63%	2.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCTU and KLMN in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.97, LCTU and KLMN 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 KLMN?

LCTU has higher volatility (4.57%) compared to KLMN (4.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCTU dropped -25.93% vs KLMN's -19.16%.

Which ETF is better, LCTU or KLMN?

On 1-year performance, KLMN leads with 21.80% vs 20.43% for LCTU. On fees, KLMN is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, KLMN has been the lower-risk option at 4.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCTU or KLMN?

Over the 1-year period, KLMN has performed better with a 21.80% return vs 20.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCTU or KLMN?

KLMN is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for LCTU.

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

KLMN has the higher dividend yield at 1.23%, compared with 0.98% for LCTU.

What is the main difference between LCTU and KLMN?

LCTU is categorized as ESG, while KLMN is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: BlackRock and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for LCTU and 0.09% for KLMN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

KLMN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 1.61), 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.