LRNZ vs. PFM

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

LRNZ (TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF) and PFM (Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LRNZ is actively managed, while PFM is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.60, they often move in opposite directions. LRNZ charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.53%/yr for PFM.

Performance

LRNZ vs. PFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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*: —

PFM

• 1D: 0.89%
• 1M: 1.34%
• 6M: 7.14%
• YTD: 9.94%
• 1Y: 17.83%
• 3Y*: 15.40%
• 5Y*: 10.87%
• 10Y*: 11.45%

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

LRNZ vs. PFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
LRNZ TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF	-5.22%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	0.63%

Correlation

The correlation between LRNZ and PFM is -0.60, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2026	-0.60

LRNZ vs. PFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LRNZ	PFM
Technology	82.1%	27.6%
Healthcare	15.0%	15.1%
Communication Services	2.9%	1.1%
Basic Materials	-	2.8%
Consumer Cyclical	-	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	-	11.1%
Energy	-	4.3%
Financial Services	-	17.9%
Industrials	-	10.7%
Real Estate	-	2.0%
Utilities	-	3.9%

Return for Risk

LRNZ vs. PFM — 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.

PFM

PFM Risk / Return Rank: 73
PFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
PFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
PFM Omega Ratio Rank: 75
PFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
PFM Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. PFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF (PFM). 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	PFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.91	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.80	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.35	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	2.52	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	10.24	—

Drawdowns

LRNZ vs. PFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRNZ drawdown since its inception was -5.22%, smaller than the maximum PFM drawdown of -53.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRNZ and PFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	LRNZ	PFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.22%	-53.21%	+47.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-7.09%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.50%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.81%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-32.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.22%	0.00%	-5.22%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.24%	-6.91%	+4.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.74%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	LRNZ	PFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.07%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	7.14%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	36.71%	9.39%	+27.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.71%	13.50%	+23.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	36.71%	15.18%	+21.53%

LRNZ vs. PFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRNZ has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than PFM's 0.53% expense ratio.

Dividends

LRNZ vs. PFM - Dividend Comparison

LRNZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while PFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.32%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
PFM Invesco Dividend Achievers™ ETF	1.32%	1.41%	1.58%	1.86%	1.95%	1.69%	1.92%	1.94%	2.27%	1.70%	2.56%	2.36%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LRNZ and PFM in my portfolio?

LRNZ and PFM 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 ETF is better, LRNZ or PFM?

On fees, PFM is cheaper at 0.53% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, LRNZ or PFM?

PFM is cheaper with a 0.53% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for LRNZ.

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

PFM has the higher dividend yield at 1.32%, compared with 0.00% for LRNZ.

What is the main difference between LRNZ and PFM?

They also come from different issuers: TrueMark Investments and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for LRNZ and 0.53% for PFM.