PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
LRNZ vs. SCHG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

LRNZ vs. SCHG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

LRNZ (TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF) and SCHG (Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LRNZ is a Artificial Intelligence fund actively managed by TrueShares, while SCHG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Dow Jones U.S. Large-Cap Growth Total Stock Market Index. LRNZ is actively managed, while SCHG is passively managed. Their 0.44 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. LRNZ charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for SCHG.

Performance

LRNZ vs. SCHG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

LRNZ

1D
1.01%
1M
—
6M
—
YTD
—
1Y
—
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—
ALL TIME*
—

SCHG

1D
1.12%
1M
0.15%
6M
7.02%
YTD
4.99%
1Y
16.16%
3Y*
21.39%
5Y*
13.15%
10Y*
18.27%
ALL TIME*
16.34%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

LRNZ

TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF
$103.68K$133.76K$133.76K

SCHG

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF
$247.66M$249.87M$339.91M

LRNZ vs. SCHG - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)
LRNZ
TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF		-6.20%
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF		-1.07%

Correlation

The correlation between LRNZ and SCHG is 0.44, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

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

0.44

LRNZ vs. SCHG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
LRNZ
SCHG

Technology

76.5%
44.0%

Healthcare

19.5%
9.9%

Communication Services

4.0%
14.1%

Basic Materials

-

1.6%

Consumer Cyclical

-

11.2%

Consumer Defensive

-

1.9%

Energy

-

0.9%

Financial Services

-

7.7%

Industrials

-

7.6%

Real Estate

-

0.6%

Utilities

-

0.5%

Technology

LRNZ
76.5%
SCHG
44.0%

Healthcare

LRNZ
19.5%
SCHG
9.9%

Communication Services

LRNZ
4.0%
SCHG
14.1%

Basic Materials

LRNZ

-

SCHG
1.6%

Consumer Cyclical

LRNZ

-

SCHG
11.2%

Consumer Defensive

LRNZ

-

SCHG
1.9%

Energy

LRNZ

-

SCHG
0.9%

Financial Services

LRNZ

-

SCHG
7.7%

Industrials

LRNZ

-

SCHG
7.6%

Real Estate

LRNZ

-

SCHG
0.6%

Utilities

LRNZ

-

SCHG
0.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF

Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF

Often compared with LRNZ:
LRNZ vs. THNQLRNZ vs. BOTZLRNZ vs. DATLRNZ vs. ARKFLRNZ vs. AIQLRNZ vs. ^GSPCLRNZ vs. ITOT
Often compared with SCHG:
SCHG vs. SCHDSCHG vs. QQQMSCHG vs. VOOSCHG vs. VUGSCHG vs. QQQSCHG vs. SPMOSCHG vs. SPYG

Return for Risk

LRNZ vs. SCHG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks 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.

SCHG
SCHG Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
SCHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3333
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SCHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 3131
Sortino Ratio Rank
SCHG Omega Ratio Rank: 3131
Omega Ratio Rank
SCHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
SCHG Martin Ratio Rank: 3030
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LRNZ vs. SCHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Technology, AI & Deep Learning ETF (LRNZ) and Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF (SCHG). 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.

LRNZSCHGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

—

0.82

—

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

—

1.20

—

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

—

1.15

—

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

—

0.83

—

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

—

2.62

—

LRNZ vs. SCHG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

LRNZ vs. SCHG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LRNZ drawdown since its inception was -11.91%, smaller than the maximum SCHG drawdown of -34.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LRNZ and SCHG.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

LRNZSCHGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-11.91%

-34.59%

+22.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

—

-16.41%

—

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

—

-23.39%

—

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

—

-34.59%

—

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

—

-34.59%

—

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.20%

-3.10%

-3.10%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-5.75%

-5.19%

-0.56%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

—

5.19%

—

Volatility

LRNZ vs. SCHG - Volatility Comparison

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

LRNZSCHGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

—

4.32%

—

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

—

12.90%

—

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

34.30%

16.67%

+17.63%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

34.30%

22.42%

+11.88%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

34.30%

21.59%

+12.71%

LRNZ vs. SCHG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

LRNZ vs. SCHG - Dividend Comparison

LRNZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while SCHG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.38%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
SCHG
Schwab U.S. Large-Cap Growth ETF		0.38%0.36%0.39%0.46%0.55%0.42%0.52%0.82%1.27%1.01%1.04%1.22%

Frequently Asked Questions

LRNZ and SCHG have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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

SCHG has the higher dividend yield at 0.38%, compared with 0.00% for LRNZ.

LRNZ is categorized as Artificial Intelligence, while SCHG is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: TrueShares and Charles Schwab. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for LRNZ and 0.04% for SCHG.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LRNZ and SCHG

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