RUNN vs. IMCB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RUNN (Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF) and IMCB (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. RUNN is actively managed, while IMCB is passively managed. Over the past year, RUNN returned -1.91% vs 23.24% for IMCB. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RUNN charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.04%/yr for IMCB.

Performance

RUNN vs. IMCB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RUNN achieves a -3.00% return, which is significantly lower than IMCB's 14.72% return.

RUNN

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: -1.22%
• YTD: -3.00%
• 6M: -3.15%
• 1Y: -1.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IMCB

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 5.22%
• YTD: 14.72%
• 6M: 14.61%
• 1Y: 23.24%
• 3Y*: 17.84%
• 5Y*: 8.81%
• 10Y*: 11.32%

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

RUNN vs. IMCB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	-3.00%	2.30%	17.16%	12.05%
IMCB iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF	14.72%	10.25%	15.10%	11.20%

Correlation

The correlation between RUNN and IMCB is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2023	0.88

The correlation between RUNN and IMCB has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

RUNN vs. IMCB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RUNN	IMCB
Industrials	39.4%	19.0%
Technology	17.8%	21.3%
Healthcare	13.3%	7.9%
Financial Services	12.8%	12.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	9.0%
Communication Services	2.1%	2.3%
Basic Materials	2.0%	5.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.1%
Energy	-	7.4%
Real Estate	-	4.3%
Utilities	-	6.2%

Return for Risk

RUNN vs. IMCB — Risk / Return Rank

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

RUNN

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

IMCB

IMCB Risk / Return Rank: 56
IMCB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
IMCB Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
IMCB Omega Ratio Rank: 51
IMCB Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
IMCB Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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.

RUNN vs. IMCB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) and iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB). 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.

	RUNN	IMCB	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.15	1.83	-1.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.13	2.61	-2.74
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.32	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.19	2.90	-3.09
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.44	11.50	-11.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RUNN vs. IMCB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RUNN Sharpe Ratio is -0.15, which is lower than the IMCB Sharpe Ratio of 1.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RUNN and IMCB, 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

	RUNN	IMCB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.15	1.83	-1.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.50	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.58	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.68	0.50	+0.17

Drawdowns

RUNN vs. IMCB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RUNN drawdown since its inception was -16.83%, smaller than the maximum IMCB drawdown of -58.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RUNN and IMCB.

Drawdown Indicators

	RUNN	IMCB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.83%	-58.80%	+41.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.34%	-8.05%	-2.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.80%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.15%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-40.99%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.89%	-0.24%	-7.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.54%	-7.73%	+4.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.34%	2.03%	+2.31%

Volatility

RUNN vs. IMCB - Volatility Comparison

Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) has a higher volatility of 3.57% compared to iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF (IMCB) at 3.31%. This indicates that RUNN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IMCB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RUNN	IMCB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.57%	3.31%	+0.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.70%	9.58%	+0.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.85%	12.75%	+0.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.81%	17.57%	-3.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.81%	19.65%	-5.84%

RUNN vs. IMCB - Expense Ratio Comparison

RUNN has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than IMCB's 0.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

RUNN vs. IMCB - Dividend Comparison

RUNN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.57%, less than IMCB's 1.21% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IMCB iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap ETF	1.21%	1.42%	1.43%	1.55%	1.70%	1.08%	1.12%	1.32%	1.80%	1.31%	1.79%	1.47%
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	0.57%	0.55%	0.39%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RUNN and IMCB in my portfolio?

RUNN and IMCB have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RUNN or IMCB?

RUNN has higher volatility (3.57%) compared to IMCB (3.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RUNN dropped -16.83% vs IMCB's -58.80%.

Which ETF is better, RUNN or IMCB?

On 1-year performance, IMCB leads with 23.24% vs -1.91% for RUNN. On fees, IMCB is cheaper at 0.04% per year. On volatility, IMCB has been the lower-risk option at 3.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RUNN or IMCB?

Over the 1-year period, IMCB has performed better with a 23.24% return vs -1.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RUNN or IMCB?

IMCB is cheaper with a 0.04% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for RUNN.

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

IMCB has the higher dividend yield at 1.21%, compared with 0.57% for RUNN.

What is the main difference between RUNN and IMCB?

They also come from different issuers: Running Oak Capital and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for RUNN and 0.04% for IMCB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IMCB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs -0.15), 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.