SPAM vs. CRTC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SPAM (Themes Cybersecurity ETF) and CRTC (Xtrackers US National Critical Technologies ETF) are both Technology Equities funds - SPAM tracks the Solactive Cyber Security Index - Benchmark TR Net while CRTC tracks the Solactive Whitney U.S. Critical Technologies Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, SPAM returned 30.91% vs 23.78% for CRTC. A 0.71 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

SPAM vs. CRTC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Cybersecurity ETF (SPAM) and Xtrackers US National Critical Technologies ETF (CRTC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SPAM achieves a 33.77% return, which is significantly higher than CRTC's 8.59% return.

SPAM

• 1D: -2.70%
• 1M: 24.26%
• YTD: 33.77%
• 6M: 25.92%
• 1Y: 30.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CRTC

• 1D: -1.08%
• 1M: 4.98%
• YTD: 8.59%
• 6M: 8.79%
• 1Y: 23.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SPAM vs. CRTC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SPAM Themes Cybersecurity ETF	33.77%	4.86%	10.58%	5.42%
CRTC Xtrackers US National Critical Technologies ETF	8.59%	18.69%	18.05%	4.10%

Correlation

The correlation between SPAM and CRTC is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 11, 2023	0.71

The correlation between SPAM and CRTC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.71 - a consistent structural relationship.

SPAM vs. CRTC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SPAM	CRTC
Technology	88.9%	33.5%
Communication Services	6.7%	16.0%
Industrials	4.0%	14.1%
Real Estate	0.5%	0.1%
Financial Services	0.1%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	2.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	6.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	0.0%
Energy	-	7.1%
Healthcare	-	14.1%
Utilities	-	6.0%

Return for Risk

SPAM vs. CRTC — Risk / Return Rank

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

SPAM

SPAM Risk / Return Rank: 28
SPAM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
SPAM Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
SPAM Omega Ratio Rank: 30
SPAM Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
SPAM Martin Ratio Rank: 23

CRTC

CRTC Risk / Return Rank: 55
CRTC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
CRTC Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
CRTC Omega Ratio Rank: 53
CRTC Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
CRTC Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

SPAM vs. CRTC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Cybersecurity ETF (SPAM) and Xtrackers US National Critical Technologies ETF (CRTC). 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.

	SPAM	CRTC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.15	1.87	-0.72
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	2.56	-0.91
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.32	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.29	2.64	-1.35
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.90	9.88	-6.98
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SPAM vs. CRTC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SPAM Sharpe Ratio is 1.15, which is lower than the CRTC Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SPAM and CRTC, 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

	SPAM	CRTC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.15	1.87	-0.72
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.89	1.36	-0.47

Drawdowns

SPAM vs. CRTC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SPAM drawdown since its inception was -24.02%, which is greater than CRTC's maximum drawdown of -19.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SPAM and CRTC.

Drawdown Indicators

	SPAM	CRTC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.02%	-19.07%	-4.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.02%	-9.05%	-14.97%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.90%	-1.27%	-2.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.53%	-2.13%	-4.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	10.69%	2.41%	+8.28%

Volatility

SPAM vs. CRTC - Volatility Comparison

Themes Cybersecurity ETF (SPAM) has a higher volatility of 10.67% compared to Xtrackers US National Critical Technologies ETF (CRTC) at 3.20%. This indicates that SPAM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CRTC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SPAM	CRTC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.67%	3.20%	+7.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.35%	9.64%	+12.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.01%	12.76%	+14.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.72%	15.73%	+8.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.72%	15.73%	+8.99%

SPAM vs. CRTC - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both SPAM and CRTC have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

SPAM vs. CRTC - Dividend Comparison

SPAM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.37%, less than CRTC's 1.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CRTC Xtrackers US National Critical Technologies ETF	1.00%	1.03%	1.13%	0.16%
SPAM Themes Cybersecurity ETF	0.37%	0.49%	0.13%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SPAM and CRTC in my portfolio?

SPAM and CRTC have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SPAM or CRTC?

SPAM has higher volatility (10.67%) compared to CRTC (3.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SPAM dropped -24.02% vs CRTC's -19.07%.

Which ETF is better, SPAM or CRTC?

On 1-year performance, SPAM leads with 30.91% vs 23.78% for CRTC. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. On volatility, CRTC has been the lower-risk option at 3.20%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SPAM or CRTC?

Over the 1-year period, SPAM has performed better with a 30.91% return vs 23.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SPAM or CRTC?

SPAM and CRTC have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SPAM or CRTC?

CRTC has the higher dividend yield at 1.00%, compared with 0.37% for SPAM.

What is the main difference between SPAM and CRTC?

SPAM tracks Solactive Cyber Security Index - Benchmark TR Net, while CRTC tracks Solactive Whitney U.S. Critical Technologies Index. They also come from different issuers: Themes and Xtrackers.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CRTC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 1.15), 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.