RUNN vs. RECS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RUNN (Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF) and RECS (Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RUNN is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Running Oak Capital, while RECS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index. RUNN is actively managed, while RECS is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RUNN returned 7.90%/yr vs 20.79%/yr for RECS. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RUNN charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for RECS.

Performance

RUNN vs. RECS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RUNN achieves a -4.67% return, which is significantly lower than RECS's 5.58% return.

RUNN

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

RECS

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: -0.32%
• YTD: 5.58%
• 6M: 5.12%
• 1Y: 23.04%
• 3Y*: 20.79%
• 5Y*: 13.80%
• 10Y*: 9.79%

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

RUNN vs. RECS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	-4.67%	2.30%	17.16%	11.90%
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	5.58%	19.30%	26.27%	12.42%

Correlation

The correlation between RUNN and RECS is 0.71, 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	0.71
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 RUNN and RECS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

RUNN vs. RECS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

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

Return for Risk

RUNN vs. RECS — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

RECS

RECS Risk / Return Rank: 58
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 56
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
RECS 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. RECS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS). 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	RECS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.21	1.91	-2.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.21	2.65	-2.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.98	1.34	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.26	2.62	-2.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.58	11.11	-11.70

RUNN vs. RECS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RUNN Sharpe Ratio is -0.21, which is lower than the RECS Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RUNN and RECS, 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. RECS - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	RUNN	RECS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.83%	-34.29%	+17.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.34%	-8.82%	-1.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.83%	-18.60%	+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	-9.47%	-1.89%	-7.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.60%	-1.28%	-2.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.66%	2.08%	+2.58%

Volatility

RUNN vs. RECS - Volatility Comparison

Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) have volatilities of 3.92% and 3.86%, 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

	RUNN	RECS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.92%	3.86%	+0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.90%	9.37%	+0.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.06%	12.12%	+0.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.81%	16.43%	-2.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.81%	16.26%	-2.45%

RUNN vs. RECS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RUNN vs. RECS - Dividend Comparison

RUNN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.58%, less than RECS's 1.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	1.05%	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 RUNN and RECS in my portfolio?

RUNN and RECS have a correlation of 0.71, 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 RECS?

RUNN has higher volatility (3.92%) compared to RECS (3.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RUNN dropped -16.83% vs RECS's -34.29%.

Which ETF is better, RUNN or RECS?

On 3-year performance, RECS leads with 20.79% 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, RUNN or RECS?

Over the 3-year period, RECS has performed better with a 20.79% return vs 7.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RUNN or RECS?

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

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

RECS has the higher dividend yield at 1.05%, compared with 0.58% for RUNN.

What is the main difference between RUNN and RECS?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RECS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 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.