LRNZ vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LRNZ (TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LRNZ is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by TrueMark Investments, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LRNZ returned 47.93% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. LRNZ charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

LRNZ vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRNZ achieves a 30.91% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.63% return.

LRNZ

• 1D: -1.80%
• 1M: 33.80%
• YTD: 30.91%
• 6M: 29.93%
• 1Y: 47.93%
• 3Y*: 26.33%
• 5Y*: 8.67%
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.63%
• 6M: 1.93%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LRNZ vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	30.91%	22.27%	2.09%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.63%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between LRNZ and CSHP is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2024	-0.01

The correlation between LRNZ and CSHP shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to -0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LRNZ vs. CSHP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRNZ	CSHP
Technology	78.4%	-
Healthcare	16.3%	-
Communication Services	5.3%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.1%
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LRNZ vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRNZ

LRNZ Risk / Return Rank: 41
LRNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
LRNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
LRNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 43
LRNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
LRNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 30

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 100
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

LRNZ vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.

	LRNZ	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	11.91	-10.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	31.26	-28.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	7.44	-6.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.79	65.71	-63.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.40	432.16	-427.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LRNZ vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRNZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRNZ and CSHP, 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

	LRNZ	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.67	11.91	-10.24
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.23	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	10.75	-10.34

Drawdowns

LRNZ vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRNZ drawdown since its inception was -61.33%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRNZ and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRNZ	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.33%	-0.08%	-61.25%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.89%	-0.06%	-26.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.10%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.33%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.56%	0.00%	-2.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.67%	-0.00%	-26.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.93%	0.01%	+10.92%

Volatility

LRNZ vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) has a higher volatility of 10.33% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.07%. This indicates that LRNZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRNZ	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.33%	0.07%	+10.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.25%	0.24%	+23.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.88%	0.33%	+28.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.26%	0.40%	+36.86%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.64%	0.40%	+37.24%

LRNZ vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRNZ has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRNZ vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

LRNZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CSHP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.92%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.92%	5.39%	1.96%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRNZ and CSHP in my portfolio?

LRNZ and CSHP have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LRNZ or CSHP?

LRNZ has higher volatility (10.33%) compared to CSHP (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRNZ dropped -61.33% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, LRNZ or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, LRNZ leads with 47.93% vs 3.96% for CSHP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRNZ or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, LRNZ has performed better with a 47.93% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRNZ or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for LRNZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LRNZ or CSHP?

CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.92%, compared with 0.00% for LRNZ.

What is the main difference between LRNZ and CSHP?

LRNZ is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: TrueMark Investments and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for LRNZ and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.91 vs 1.67), 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.