RNWZ vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RNWZ (TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RNWZ is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by TrueShares, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RNWZ returned 38.19% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a correlation of -0.02, they often move in opposite directions. RNWZ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

RNWZ vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RNWZ achieves a 16.28% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.63% return.

RNWZ

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -2.61%
• YTD: 16.28%
• 6M: 16.86%
• 1Y: 38.19%
• 3Y*: 12.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.63%
• 6M: 1.93%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RNWZ vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	16.28%	36.33%	-7.69%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.63%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between RNWZ and CSHP is -0.11, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2024	-0.02

RNWZ vs. CSHP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RNWZ	CSHP
Utilities	41.0%	-
Financial Services	6.9%	0.1%
Industrials	5.3%	-
Basic Materials	4.5%	-
Energy	3.8%	-
Real Estate	3.2%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Technology	-	-

Return for Risk

RNWZ vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNWZ

RNWZ Risk / Return Rank: 80
RNWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RNWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RNWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RNWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RNWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 80

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 100
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

RNWZ vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.

	RNWZ	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	11.91	-9.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.40	31.26	-27.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	7.44	-5.99
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.33	65.71	-59.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.60	432.16	-416.56
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RNWZ vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNWZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNWZ and CSHP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RNWZ	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	11.91	-9.36
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	10.75	-10.14

Drawdowns

RNWZ vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNWZ drawdown since its inception was -24.90%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNWZ and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNWZ	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.90%	-0.08%	-24.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.06%	-0.06%	-6.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.74%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.46%	0.00%	-4.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.19%	-0.00%	-7.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.45%	0.01%	+2.44%

Volatility

RNWZ vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) has a higher volatility of 5.06% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.07%. This indicates that RNWZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RNWZ	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.06%	0.07%	+4.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.86%	0.24%	+11.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.06%	0.33%	+14.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.99%	0.40%	+16.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.99%	0.40%	+16.59%

RNWZ vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNWZ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNWZ vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

RNWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.93%, less than CSHP's 3.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.92%	5.39%	1.96%	0.00%	0.00%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	1.93%	2.12%	2.36%	3.87%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNWZ and CSHP in my portfolio?

RNWZ and CSHP have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RNWZ or CSHP?

RNWZ has higher volatility (5.06%) compared to CSHP (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNWZ dropped -24.90% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, RNWZ or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, RNWZ leads with 38.19% vs 3.96% for CSHP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RNWZ or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, RNWZ has performed better with a 38.19% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNWZ or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNWZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RNWZ or CSHP?

CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.92%, compared with 1.93% for RNWZ.

What is the main difference between RNWZ and CSHP?

RNWZ is categorized as Energy Equities, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: TrueShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RNWZ and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.91 vs 2.55), 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.