LRNZ vs. ILCG

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

LRNZ (TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF) and ILCG (iShares Morningstar Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LRNZ is actively managed, while ILCG is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LRNZ charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for ILCG.

Performance

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

LRNZ

• 1D: -3.48%
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: -1.70%
• 1M: -1.90%
• 6M: 8.84%
• YTD: 9.80%
• 1Y: 16.71%
• 3Y*: 21.94%
• 5Y*: 12.41%
• 10Y*: 17.43%

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

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	-5.22%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	-1.74%

Correlation

The correlation between LRNZ and ILCG is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2026	0.90

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRNZ	ILCG
Technology	82.1%	53.1%
Healthcare	15.0%	5.2%
Communication Services	2.9%	13.5%
Basic Materials	-	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	10.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.4%
Energy	-	0.4%
Financial Services	-	5.5%
Industrials	-	7.7%
Real Estate	-	1.3%
Utilities	-	0.7%

Return for Risk

LRNZ vs. ILCG — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRNZ

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

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 29
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 29
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 31

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. ILCG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG). 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.

	LRNZ	ILCG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.92	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.33	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.17	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.07	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	3.58	—

Drawdowns

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRNZ drawdown since its inception was -5.22%, smaller than the maximum ILCG drawdown of -52.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRNZ and ILCG.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRNZ	ILCG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.22%	-52.98%	+47.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-15.65%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.10%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.38%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.22%	-5.07%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.24%	-8.20%	+5.96%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	4.68%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	LRNZ	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.57%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	15.22%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	36.71%	18.20%	+18.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.71%	22.32%	+14.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.71%	21.65%	+15.06%

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRNZ has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than ILCG's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Dividend Comparison

LRNZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ILCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.42%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	0.42%	0.47%	0.50%	0.69%	0.75%	0.34%	0.28%	0.54%	0.81%	0.89%	0.95%	0.99%
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRNZ and ILCG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, LRNZ and ILCG 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 ETF is better, LRNZ or ILCG?

On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRNZ or ILCG?

ILCG is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for LRNZ.

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

ILCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.42%, compared with 0.00% for LRNZ.

What is the main difference between LRNZ and ILCG?

They also come from different issuers: TrueMark Investments and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for LRNZ and 0.04% for ILCG.