LRNZ vs. IQM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LRNZ (TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF) and IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, LRNZ returned 8.67%/yr vs 22.22%/yr for IQM. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. LRNZ charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for IQM.

Performance

LRNZ vs. IQM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). 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 lower than IQM's 40.18% return.

LRNZ

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

IQM

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 11.94%
• YTD: 40.18%
• 6M: 38.57%
• 1Y: 75.07%
• 3Y*: 37.62%
• 5Y*: 22.22%
• 10Y*: —

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

LRNZ vs. IQM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	30.91%	22.27%	2.01%	67.11%	-51.46%	-0.96%	87.82%
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	40.18%	30.76%	31.03%	41.06%	-33.36%	25.18%	74.64%

Correlation

The correlation between LRNZ and IQM is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2020	0.78

The correlation between LRNZ and IQM shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.80 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LRNZ vs. IQM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRNZ	IQM
Technology	78.4%	65.9%
Healthcare	16.3%	1.1%
Communication Services	5.3%	2.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	2.7%
Financial Services	-	-
Industrials	-	19.9%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	3.3%

Return for Risk

LRNZ vs. IQM — 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

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 78
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. IQM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM). 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	IQM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.67	2.67	-1.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	3.11	-0.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.43	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.79	5.13	-3.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.40	16.79	-12.39
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. IQM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRNZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is lower than the IQM Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRNZ and IQM, 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	IQM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.67	2.67	-1.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.23	0.77	-0.54
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.41	0.96	-0.55

Drawdowns

LRNZ vs. IQM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRNZ drawdown since its inception was -61.33%, which is greater than IQM's maximum drawdown of -44.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRNZ and IQM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRNZ	IQM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-61.33%	-44.91%	-16.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.89%	-14.71%	-12.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-33.10%	-30.42%	-2.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-61.33%	-44.91%	-16.42%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.56%	-0.37%	-2.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.67%	-12.25%	-14.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.93%	4.49%	+6.44%

Volatility

LRNZ vs. IQM - Volatility Comparison

TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) has a higher volatility of 10.33% compared to Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) at 9.20%. This indicates that LRNZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IQM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LRNZ	IQM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.33%	9.20%	+1.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	23.25%	22.92%	+0.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	28.88%	28.27%	+0.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	37.26%	28.91%	+8.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	37.64%	30.72%	+6.92%

LRNZ vs. IQM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRNZ has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than IQM's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRNZ vs. IQM - Dividend Comparison

Neither LRNZ nor IQM has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRNZ and IQM in my portfolio?

LRNZ and IQM have a correlation of 0.65, 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 IQM?

LRNZ has higher volatility (10.33%) compared to IQM (9.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRNZ dropped -61.33% vs IQM's -44.91%.

Which ETF is better, LRNZ or IQM?

On 5-year performance, IQM leads with 22.22% vs 8.67% for LRNZ. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, IQM has been the lower-risk option at 9.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LRNZ or IQM?

Over the 5-year period, IQM has performed better with a 22.22% return vs 8.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRNZ or IQM?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for LRNZ.

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

LRNZ and IQM have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between LRNZ and IQM?

They also come from different issuers: TrueMark Investments and Franklin Templeton. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for LRNZ and 0.50% for IQM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IQM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 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.