RNWZ vs. EWY

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

RNWZ (TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF) and EWY (iShares MSCI South Korea ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RNWZ is a Energy Equities fund actively managed by TrueShares, while EWY is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the MSCI Korea Index. RNWZ is actively managed, while EWY is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RNWZ returned 11.78%/yr vs 46.46%/yr for EWY. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RNWZ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for EWY.

Performance

RNWZ vs. EWY - 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 MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RNWZ achieves a 15.40% return, which is significantly lower than EWY's 103.10% return.

RNWZ

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.92%
• YTD: 15.40%
• 6M: 17.62%
• 1Y: 34.43%
• 3Y*: 11.78%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EWY

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 10.39%
• YTD: 103.10%
• 6M: 117.85%
• 1Y: 203.95%
• 3Y*: 46.46%
• 5Y*: 18.80%
• 10Y*: 16.84%

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

RNWZ vs. EWY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	15.40%	36.33%	-7.36%	-3.89%	-0.74%
EWY iShares MSCI South Korea ETF	103.10%	95.33%	-20.48%	19.05%	-0.79%

Correlation

The correlation between RNWZ and EWY is 0.35, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.35
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.39
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2022	0.39

RNWZ vs. EWY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RNWZ	EWY
Utilities	40.6%	0.4%
Financial Services	6.3%	9.7%
Industrials	5.3%	14.5%
Basic Materials	4.8%	2.5%
Energy	3.9%	0.7%
Real Estate	3.2%	-
Communication Services	-	2.7%
Consumer Cyclical	-	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.8%
Healthcare	-	3.1%
Technology	-	57.4%

Return for Risk

RNWZ vs. EWY — 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: 79
RNWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
RNWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RNWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
RNWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 77

EWY

EWY Risk / Return Rank: 95
EWY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
EWY Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
EWY Omega Ratio Rank: 94
EWY Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
EWY Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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. EWY - 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 MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY). 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.

	RNWZ	EWY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.23	4.29	-2.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.04	4.08	-1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.59	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	8.65	-3.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.90	30.24	-17.33

RNWZ vs. EWY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNWZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.23, which is lower than the EWY Sharpe Ratio of 4.29. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNWZ and EWY, 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

RNWZ vs. EWY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNWZ drawdown since its inception was -24.90%, smaller than the maximum EWY drawdown of -74.14%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNWZ and EWY.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNWZ	EWY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.90%	-74.14%	+49.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.07%	-23.08%	+16.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.74%	-27.36%	+2.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-48.55%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-49.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.19%	-8.88%	+3.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.17%	-20.11%	+12.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.63%	6.59%	-3.96%

Volatility

RNWZ vs. EWY - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF (RNWZ) is 5.01%, while iShares MSCI South Korea ETF (EWY) has a volatility of 25.64%. This indicates that RNWZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EWY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RNWZ	EWY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.01%	25.64%	-20.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.10%	42.65%	-30.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.25%	46.51%	-31.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.98%	30.15%	-13.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.98%	28.06%	-11.08%

RNWZ vs. EWY - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNWZ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than EWY's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNWZ vs. EWY - Dividend Comparison

RNWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.94%, more than EWY's 1.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EWY iShares MSCI South Korea ETF	1.03%	2.10%	2.55%	2.52%	1.23%	2.16%	0.73%	2.10%	1.34%	2.90%	1.21%	2.42%
RNWZ TrueShares Eagle Global Renewable Energy Income ETF	1.94%	2.12%	2.36%	3.87%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNWZ and EWY in my portfolio?

RNWZ and EWY have a correlation of 0.35, 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 EWY?

EWY has higher volatility (25.64%) compared to RNWZ (5.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNWZ dropped -24.90% vs EWY's -74.14%.

Which ETF is better, RNWZ or EWY?

On 3-year performance, EWY leads with 46.46% vs 11.78% for RNWZ. On fees, EWY is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, RNWZ has been the lower-risk option at 5.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RNWZ or EWY?

Over the 3-year period, EWY has performed better with a 46.46% return vs 11.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNWZ or EWY?

EWY is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RNWZ.

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

RNWZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.94%, compared with 1.03% for EWY.

What is the main difference between RNWZ and EWY?

RNWZ is categorized as Energy Equities, while EWY is Asia Pacific Equities. They also come from different issuers: TrueShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RNWZ and 0.59% for EWY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EWY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.29 vs 2.23), 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.