RUNN vs. LSAF

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

RUNN (Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF) and LSAF (LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. RUNN is actively managed, while LSAF is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RUNN returned 9.72%/yr vs 19.37%/yr for LSAF. Their correlation of 0.87 means they have usually moved in the same direction. RUNN charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for LSAF.

Performance

RUNN vs. LSAF - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RUNN achieves a 3.56% return, which is significantly lower than LSAF's 21.44% return.

RUNN

• 1D: 1.59%
• 1M: 3.78%
• 6M: -0.46%
• YTD: 3.56%
• 1Y: 3.30%
• 3Y*: 9.72%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.97%

LSAF

• 1D: 1.24%
• 1M: 3.75%
• 6M: 17.38%
• YTD: 21.44%
• 1Y: 31.64%
• 3Y*: 19.37%
• 5Y*: 11.15%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.18%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	$285.75K	$222.00K	$207.69K
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	$1.22M	$3.95M	$2.56M

RUNN vs. LSAF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	3.56%	2.30%	17.16%	11.90%
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	21.44%	12.01%	18.09%	13.56%

Correlation

The correlation between RUNN and LSAF is 0.83, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 8, 2023	0.87

The correlation between RUNN and LSAF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

RUNN vs. LSAF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RUNN	LSAF
Industrials	36.0%	10.7%
Technology	19.6%	15.4%
Healthcare	13.3%	7.8%
Financial Services	12.8%	16.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	19.9%
Basic Materials	3.7%	5.8%
Communication Services	2.1%	4.7%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.1%
Energy	-	3.3%
Real Estate	-	2.1%
Utilities	-	0.9%

Return for Risk

RUNN vs. LSAF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RUNN

RUNN Risk / Return Rank: 15
RUNN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
RUNN Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
RUNN Omega Ratio Rank: 15
RUNN Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
RUNN Martin Ratio Rank: 15

LSAF

LSAF Risk / Return Rank: 89
LSAF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
LSAF Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
LSAF Omega Ratio Rank: 84
LSAF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
LSAF Martin Ratio Rank: 91

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RUNN vs. LSAF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) and LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF). 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.

	RUNN	LSAF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.24	2.22	-1.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.46	3.23	-2.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.38	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.32	4.83	-4.51
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.68	16.27	-15.59

RUNN vs. LSAF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RUNN Sharpe Ratio is 0.24, which is lower than the LSAF Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RUNN and LSAF, 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

RUNN vs. LSAF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RUNN drawdown since its inception was -16.83%, smaller than the maximum LSAF drawdown of -41.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RUNN and LSAF.

Drawdown Indicators

	RUNN	LSAF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.83%	-41.67%	+24.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.34%	-6.58%	-3.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.83%	-20.26%	+3.43%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.94%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.66%	-0.26%	-1.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.68%	-6.20%	+2.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.90%	1.95%	+2.95%

Volatility

RUNN vs. LSAF - Volatility Comparison

Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) has a higher volatility of 5.02% compared to LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) at 4.27%. This indicates that RUNN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LSAF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RUNN	LSAF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.02%	4.27%	+0.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.52%	10.52%	0.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.65%	14.37%	-0.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.92%	18.39%	-4.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.92%	21.73%	-7.81%

RUNN vs. LSAF - Expense Ratio Comparison

RUNN has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than LSAF's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

RUNN vs. LSAF - Dividend Comparison

RUNN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, less than LSAF's 0.56% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	0.56%	0.69%	0.42%	0.84%	0.96%	0.37%	0.53%	0.71%	0.20%
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	0.54%	0.55%	0.39%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RUNN and LSAF in my portfolio?

RUNN and LSAF have a correlation of 0.83, 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 LSAF?

RUNN has higher volatility (5.02%) compared to LSAF (4.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RUNN dropped -16.83% vs LSAF's -41.67%.

Which ETF is better, RUNN or LSAF?

On 3-year performance, LSAF leads with 19.37% vs 9.72% for RUNN. On fees, RUNN is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, LSAF has been the lower-risk option at 4.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RUNN or LSAF?

Over the 3-year period, LSAF has performed better with a 19.37% return vs 9.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RUNN or LSAF?

RUNN is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LSAF.

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

LSAF has the higher dividend yield at 0.56%, compared with 0.54% for RUNN.

What is the main difference between RUNN and LSAF?

They also come from different issuers: Running Oak and Redwood. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for RUNN and 0.75% for LSAF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LSAF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.22 vs 0.24), 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.