PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LRNZ vs. QUS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LRNZ vs. QUS - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LRNZ achieves a 30.91% return, which is significantly higher than QUS's 6.67% return.


LRNZ

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

QUS

1D
-0.43%
1M
2.68%
YTD
6.67%
6M
6.93%
1Y
17.65%
3Y*
17.53%
5Y*
11.08%
10Y*
13.67%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

LRNZ vs. QUS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
LRNZ
TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF
30.91%22.27%2.01%67.11%-51.46%-0.96%87.82%
QUS
SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF
6.67%14.13%18.99%21.78%-14.15%26.72%16.96%

Correlation

The correlation between LRNZ and QUS is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.46

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.59

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.64

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 3, 2020

0.58

The correlation between LRNZ and QUS shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.64 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LRNZ vs. QUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
LRNZ
QUS

Technology

78.4%
26.3%

Healthcare

16.3%
13.4%

Communication Services

5.3%
10.2%

Basic Materials

-

2.3%

Consumer Cyclical

-

5.8%

Consumer Defensive

-

9.2%

Energy

-

4.6%

Financial Services

-

14.6%

Industrials

-

8.6%

Real Estate

-

1.4%

Utilities

-

3.6%

Technology

LRNZ
78.4%
QUS
26.3%

Healthcare

LRNZ
16.3%
QUS
13.4%

Communication Services

LRNZ
5.3%
QUS
10.2%

Basic Materials

LRNZ

-

QUS
2.3%

Consumer Cyclical

LRNZ

-

QUS
5.8%

Consumer Defensive

LRNZ

-

QUS
9.2%

Energy

LRNZ

-

QUS
4.6%

Financial Services

LRNZ

-

QUS
14.6%

Industrials

LRNZ

-

QUS
8.6%

Real Estate

LRNZ

-

QUS
1.4%

Utilities

LRNZ

-

QUS
3.6%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

LRNZ vs. QUS — Risk / Return Rank

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

LRNZ
LRNZ Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
LRNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4848
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LRNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 4646
Sortino Ratio Rank
LRNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 4343
Omega Ratio Rank
LRNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3636
Calmar Ratio Rank
LRNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank

QUS
QUS Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
QUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
QUS Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
QUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
QUS Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
Martin Ratio Rank
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. QUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS). 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.


LRNZQUSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.28

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.53

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.35

-0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.79

2.59

-0.80

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

4.40

11.54

-7.14

LRNZ vs. QUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LRNZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.67, which is comparable to the QUS Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LRNZ and QUS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


LRNZQUSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.67

1.95

-0.28

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.23

0.78

-0.54

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.41

0.77

-0.36

Drawdowns

LRNZ vs. QUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRNZ drawdown since its inception was -61.33%, which is greater than QUS's maximum drawdown of -33.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRNZ and QUS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LRNZQUSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-61.33%

-33.78%

-27.55%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-26.89%

-6.85%

-20.04%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-33.10%

-13.94%

-19.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-61.33%

-22.30%

-39.03%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.78%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.56%

-0.50%

-2.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-26.67%

-3.70%

-22.97%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

10.93%

1.53%

+9.40%

Volatility

LRNZ vs. QUS - Volatility Comparison

TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) has a higher volatility of 10.33% compared to SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS) at 1.78%. This indicates that LRNZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LRNZQUSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

10.33%

1.78%

+8.55%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

23.25%

6.66%

+16.59%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

28.88%

9.09%

+19.79%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

37.26%

14.33%

+22.93%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

37.64%

16.42%

+21.22%

LRNZ vs. QUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

LRNZ has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than QUS's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

LRNZ vs. QUS - Dividend Comparison

LRNZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QUS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
QUS
SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF
1.31%1.38%1.49%1.57%1.68%1.27%1.73%1.81%2.12%1.86%2.07%1.48%

Frequently Asked Questions


LRNZ and QUS have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

LRNZ has higher volatility (10.33%) compared to QUS (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LRNZ dropped -61.33% vs QUS's -33.78%.

On 5-year performance, QUS leads with 11.08% vs 8.67% for LRNZ. On fees, QUS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, QUS has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, QUS has performed better with a 11.08% return vs 8.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QUS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for LRNZ.

QUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.31%, compared with 0.00% for LRNZ.

They also come from different issuers: TrueMark Investments and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for LRNZ and 0.15% for QUS.

QUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LRNZ and QUS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer