LGCF vs. CZAR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

LGCF (Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF) and CZAR (Themes Natural Monopoly ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LGCF is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Solactive US Cash Flow Champions Index, while CZAR is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Solactive Natural Monopoly Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, LGCF returned 21.52% vs 7.47% for CZAR. Their 0.62 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. LGCF charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for CZAR.

Performance

LGCF vs. CZAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) and Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LGCF achieves a 9.78% return, which is significantly higher than CZAR's 3.33% return.

LGCF

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 2.97%
• 6M: 8.45%
• YTD: 9.78%
• 1Y: 21.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.94%

CZAR

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 3.31%
• 6M: 2.62%
• YTD: 3.33%
• 1Y: 7.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.05%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	$4.24K	$4.35K	$3.75K
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	$3.08K	$4.14K	$25.50K

LGCF vs. CZAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	9.78%	15.71%	17.65%	3.29%
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	3.33%	13.32%	10.92%	3.83%

Correlation

The correlation between LGCF and CZAR is 0.60, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2023	0.62

The correlation between LGCF and CZAR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.60 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

LGCF vs. CZAR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGCF	CZAR
Financial Services	38.3%	17.8%
Energy	19.0%	3.0%
Healthcare	17.9%	8.8%
Technology	8.5%	27.3%
Consumer Cyclical	7.8%	5.7%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	4.9%
Communication Services	2.1%	4.7%
Basic Materials	1.9%	2.8%
Industrials	1.5%	21.3%
Real Estate	-	0.2%
Utilities	-	2.5%

Return for Risk

LGCF vs. CZAR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LGCF

LGCF Risk / Return Rank: 76
LGCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
LGCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
LGCF Omega Ratio Rank: 72
LGCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
LGCF Martin Ratio Rank: 82

CZAR

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LGCF vs. CZAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) and Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR). 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.

	LGCF	CZAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	0.48	+1.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	0.76	+1.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.09	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.53	0.61	+2.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.15	1.73	+9.41

LGCF vs. CZAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGCF Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is higher than the CZAR Sharpe Ratio of 0.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGCF and CZAR, 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

LGCF vs. CZAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGCF drawdown since its inception was -16.67%, which is greater than CZAR's maximum drawdown of -13.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGCF and CZAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGCF	CZAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.67%	-13.38%	-3.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.75%	-9.54%	+3.79%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.12%	0.00%	-1.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.12%	-2.27%	+0.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.82%	3.37%	-1.55%

Volatility

LGCF vs. CZAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) is 2.55%, while Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) has a volatility of 3.48%. This indicates that LGCF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CZAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGCF	CZAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.55%	3.48%	-0.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.96%	9.39%	+0.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.59%	12.24%	+0.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.89%	14.85%	+0.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.89%	14.85%	+0.04%

LGCF vs. CZAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGCF has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than CZAR's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGCF vs. CZAR - Dividend Comparison

LGCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, while CZAR has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	1.42%	1.47%	0.94%
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	1.67%	1.84%	1.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGCF and CZAR in my portfolio?

LGCF and CZAR have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGCF or CZAR?

CZAR has higher volatility (3.48%) compared to LGCF (2.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGCF dropped -16.67% vs CZAR's -13.38%.

Which ETF is better, LGCF or CZAR?

On 1-year performance, LGCF leads with 21.52% vs 7.47% for CZAR. On fees, LGCF is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, LGCF has been the lower-risk option at 2.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGCF or CZAR?

Over the 1-year period, LGCF has performed better with a 21.52% return vs 7.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGCF or CZAR?

LGCF is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CZAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LGCF or CZAR?

LGCF has the higher dividend yield at 1.67%, compared with 1.42% for CZAR.

What is the main difference between LGCF and CZAR?

LGCF is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while CZAR is Large Cap Blend Equities. LGCF tracks Solactive US Cash Flow Champions Index, while CZAR tracks Solactive Natural Monopoly Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LGCF and 0.35% for CZAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LGCF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.61 vs 0.48), 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.