RECS vs. RUNN

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RECS (Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF) and RUNN (Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RECS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index, while RUNN is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Running Oak Capital. RECS is passively managed, while RUNN is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RECS returned 20.55%/yr vs 7.90%/yr for RUNN. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RECS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for RUNN.

Performance

RECS vs. RUNN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RECS achieves a 4.95% return, which is significantly higher than RUNN's -4.67% return.

RECS

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: -0.92%
• YTD: 4.95%
• 6M: 3.98%
• 1Y: 21.27%
• 3Y*: 20.55%
• 5Y*: 13.53%
• 10Y*: 9.72%

RUNN

• 1D: -0.51%
• 1M: -2.58%
• YTD: -4.67%
• 6M: -5.98%
• 1Y: -2.72%
• 3Y*: 7.90%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RECS vs. RUNN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	4.95%	19.30%	26.27%	12.42%
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	-4.67%	2.30%	17.16%	11.90%

Correlation

The correlation between RECS and RUNN is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 8, 2023	0.75

The correlation between RECS and RUNN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

RECS vs. RUNN - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RECS	RUNN
Technology	32.9%	17.8%
Financial Services	16.9%	12.8%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	8.3%
Healthcare	9.2%	13.3%
Communication Services	7.6%	2.1%
Industrials	7.3%	39.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	-
Energy	3.5%	-
Utilities	2.3%	-
Real Estate	2.3%	-
Basic Materials	2.2%	2.0%

Return for Risk

RECS vs. RUNN — Risk / Return Rank

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

RECS

RECS Risk / Return Rank: 55
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 52
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
RECS Martin Ratio Rank: 60

RUNN

RUNN Risk / Return Rank: 6
RUNN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
RUNN Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
RUNN Omega Ratio Rank: 6
RUNN Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
RUNN Martin Ratio Rank: 6

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.

RECS vs. RUNN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN). 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.

	RECS	RUNN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.77	-0.21	+1.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.47	-0.21	+2.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	0.98	+0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	-0.26	+2.69
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.23	-0.58	+10.82

RECS vs. RUNN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RECS Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is higher than the RUNN Sharpe Ratio of -0.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RECS and RUNN, 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

RECS vs. RUNN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RECS drawdown since its inception was -34.29%, which is greater than RUNN's maximum drawdown of -16.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RECS and RUNN.

Drawdown Indicators

	RECS	RUNN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.29%	-16.83%	-17.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.82%	-10.34%	+1.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.60%	-16.83%	-1.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.48%	-9.47%	+6.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.28%	-3.60%	+2.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.08%	4.66%	-2.58%

Volatility

RECS vs. RUNN - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) have volatilities of 3.90% and 3.92%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RECS	RUNN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.90%	3.92%	-0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.38%	9.90%	-0.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.11%	13.06%	-0.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.43%	13.81%	+2.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.26%	13.81%	+2.45%

RECS vs. RUNN - Expense Ratio Comparison

RECS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than RUNN's 0.58% expense ratio.

Dividends

RECS vs. RUNN - Dividend Comparison

RECS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, more than RUNN's 0.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	1.06%	1.11%	1.09%	1.00%	1.41%	20.64%	1.09%	0.49%
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	0.58%	0.55%	0.39%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RECS and RUNN in my portfolio?

RECS and RUNN have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RECS or RUNN?

RUNN has higher volatility (3.92%) compared to RECS (3.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RECS dropped -34.29% vs RUNN's -16.83%.

Which ETF is better, RECS or RUNN?

On 3-year performance, RECS leads with 20.55% vs 7.90% for RUNN. On fees, RECS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RECS or RUNN?

Over the 3-year period, RECS has performed better with a 20.55% return vs 7.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RECS or RUNN?

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for RUNN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RECS or RUNN?

RECS has the higher dividend yield at 1.06%, compared with 0.58% for RUNN.

What is the main difference between RECS and RUNN?

RECS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while RUNN is Mid Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and Running Oak Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for RECS and 0.58% for RUNN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RECS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs -0.21), 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.