LRNZ vs. ILCG

Last updated Jun 25, 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. Over the past 5 years, LRNZ returned 5.32%/yr vs 12.68%/yr for ILCG. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. 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

In the year-to-date period, LRNZ achieves a 23.78% return, which is significantly higher than ILCG's 9.10% return.

LRNZ

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 8.75%
• YTD: 23.78%
• 6M: 21.66%
• 1Y: 34.87%
• 3Y*: 23.92%
• 5Y*: 5.32%
• 10Y*: —

ILCG

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -1.90%
• YTD: 9.10%
• 6M: 7.52%
• 1Y: 20.09%
• 3Y*: 23.75%
• 5Y*: 12.68%
• 10Y*: 18.09%

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

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	23.78%	22.27%	2.01%	67.11%	-51.46%	-0.96%	90.52%
ILCG iShares Morningstar Growth ETF	9.10%	16.71%	32.82%	40.41%	-31.75%	24.33%	41.70%

Correlation

The correlation between LRNZ and ILCG is 0.73, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.73
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 2, 2020	0.79

The correlation between LRNZ and ILCG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

LRNZ Risk / Return Rank: 32
LRNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
LRNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
LRNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 33
LRNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
LRNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 26

ILCG

ILCG Risk / Return Rank: 32
ILCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
ILCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
ILCG Omega Ratio Rank: 34
ILCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
ILCG Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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	1.15	1.15	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.68	1.60	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.21	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	1.29	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.15	4.42	-1.27

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRNZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.15, which is comparable to the ILCG Sharpe Ratio of 1.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRNZ and ILCG, 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

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRNZ drawdown since its inception was -61.33%, which is greater than ILCG's maximum 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	-61.33%	-52.98%	-8.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.89%	-15.65%	-11.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.10%	-23.10%	-10.00%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.33%	-35.38%	-25.95%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.38%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.87%	-5.68%	-2.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.48%	-8.21%	-18.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.09%	4.56%	+6.53%

Volatility

LRNZ vs. ILCG - Volatility Comparison

TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) has a higher volatility of 14.14% compared to iShares Morningstar Growth ETF (ILCG) at 7.82%. This indicates that LRNZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILCG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRNZ	ILCG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.14%	7.82%	+6.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.55%	14.46%	+10.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	30.44%	17.65%	+12.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.45%	22.22%	+15.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.68%	21.62%	+16.06%

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%	0.13%	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?

LRNZ and ILCG have a correlation of 0.73, 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 ILCG?

LRNZ has higher volatility (14.14%) compared to ILCG (7.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRNZ dropped -61.33% vs ILCG's -52.98%.

Which ETF is better, LRNZ or ILCG?

On 5-year performance, ILCG leads with 12.68% vs 5.32% for LRNZ. On fees, ILCG is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, ILCG has been the lower-risk option at 7.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRNZ or ILCG?

Over the 5-year period, ILCG has performed better with a 12.68% return vs 5.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LRNZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.15 vs 1.15), 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.