LSAF vs. CZA

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LSAF (LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF) and CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - LSAF tracks the AlphaFactor US Core Equity Index while CZA tracks the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LSAF returned 10.56%/yr vs 7.42%/yr for CZA. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LSAF charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CZA.

Performance

LSAF vs. CZA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) and Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LSAF achieves a 13.78% return, which is significantly higher than CZA's 7.88% return.

LSAF

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 3.98%
• YTD: 13.78%
• 6M: 11.61%
• 1Y: 25.54%
• 3Y*: 19.66%
• 5Y*: 10.56%
• 10Y*: —

CZA

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 2.32%
• YTD: 7.88%
• 6M: 6.71%
• 1Y: 16.67%
• 3Y*: 12.98%
• 5Y*: 7.42%
• 10Y*: 10.64%

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

LSAF vs. CZA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	13.78%	12.01%	18.09%	15.48%	-13.12%	22.75%	6.92%	28.35%	-15.47%
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	7.88%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.91%	27.42%	0.35%	32.27%	-12.40%

Correlation

The correlation between LSAF and CZA is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 2, 2018	0.89

The correlation between LSAF and CZA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

LSAF vs. CZA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LSAF	CZA
Consumer Cyclical	22.6%	8.0%
Technology	18.7%	10.1%
Financial Services	16.7%	24.0%
Industrials	14.5%	16.3%
Healthcare	9.3%	13.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	3.0%
Energy	5.3%	0.7%
Basic Materials	3.2%	4.3%
Real Estate	2.1%	10.1%
Communication Services	1.0%	-
Utilities	0.9%	10.4%

Return for Risk

LSAF vs. CZA — Risk / Return Rank

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

LSAF

LSAF Risk / Return Rank: 62
LSAF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
LSAF Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
LSAF Omega Ratio Rank: 50
LSAF Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
LSAF Martin Ratio Rank: 71

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 39
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 35
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

LSAF vs. CZA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) and Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA). 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.

	LSAF	CZA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.31	+0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.63	1.97	+0.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.23	+0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.90	1.82	+2.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.78	6.96	+5.81

LSAF vs. CZA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LSAF Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is higher than the CZA Sharpe Ratio of 1.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LSAF and CZA, 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

LSAF vs. CZA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LSAF drawdown since its inception was -41.67%, smaller than the maximum CZA drawdown of -53.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LSAF and CZA.

Drawdown Indicators

	LSAF	CZA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.67%	-53.20%	+11.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.58%	-9.21%	+2.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.26%	-18.92%	-1.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.94%	-18.92%	-6.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	-0.80%	-0.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.29%	-6.87%	+0.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.00%	2.40%	-0.40%

Volatility

LSAF vs. CZA - Volatility Comparison

LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) has a higher volatility of 3.54% compared to Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) at 2.90%. This indicates that LSAF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CZA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LSAF	CZA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.54%	2.90%	+0.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.43%	9.42%	+1.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.39%	12.83%	+1.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.43%	16.14%	+2.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.84%	19.29%	+2.55%

LSAF vs. CZA - Expense Ratio Comparison

LSAF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CZA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

LSAF vs. CZA - Dividend Comparison

LSAF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, less than CZA's 1.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.44%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	0.60%	0.69%	0.42%	0.84%	0.96%	0.37%	0.53%	0.71%	0.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LSAF and CZA in my portfolio?

LSAF and CZA have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LSAF or CZA?

LSAF has higher volatility (3.54%) compared to CZA (2.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LSAF dropped -41.67% vs CZA's -53.20%.

Which ETF is better, LSAF or CZA?

On 5-year performance, LSAF leads with 10.56% vs 7.42% for CZA. On fees, CZA is cheaper at 0.69% per year. On volatility, CZA has been the lower-risk option at 2.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LSAF or CZA?

Over the 5-year period, LSAF has performed better with a 10.56% return vs 7.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LSAF or CZA?

CZA is cheaper with a 0.69% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LSAF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LSAF or CZA?

CZA has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 0.60% for LSAF.

What is the main difference between LSAF and CZA?

LSAF tracks AlphaFactor US Core Equity Index, while CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index. They also come from different issuers: Redwood and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LSAF and 0.69% for CZA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LSAF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 1.31), 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.