THRO vs. TRFM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

THRO (iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF) and TRFM (AAM Transformers ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - THRO is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by iShares, while TRFM is a Technology Equities fund tracking the Pence Transformers Index - Benchmark TR Gross. THRO is actively managed, while TRFM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, THRO returned 24.61%/yr vs 31.42%/yr for TRFM. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. THRO charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for TRFM.

Performance

THRO vs. TRFM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF (THRO) and AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, THRO achieves a 13.04% return, which is significantly lower than TRFM's 29.81% return.

THRO

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 5.47%
• YTD: 13.04%
• 6M: 12.44%
• 1Y: 26.67%
• 3Y*: 24.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TRFM

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 10.30%
• YTD: 29.81%
• 6M: 27.54%
• 1Y: 52.18%
• 3Y*: 31.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

THRO vs. TRFM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
THRO iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF	13.04%	15.04%	32.03%	24.40%	5.10%
TRFM AAM Transformers ETF	29.81%	25.76%	19.96%	44.71%	-7.38%

Correlation

The correlation between THRO and TRFM is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2022	0.86

The correlation between THRO and TRFM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

THRO vs. TRFM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	THRO	TRFM
Technology	40.7%	53.3%
Financial Services	12.1%	2.8%
Communication Services	11.6%	12.3%
Industrials	10.4%	7.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	17.7%
Consumer Defensive	7.1%	-
Healthcare	6.6%	0.2%
Energy	1.7%	3.5%
Basic Materials	0.9%	1.2%
Utilities	0.1%	1.7%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

THRO vs. TRFM — Risk / Return Rank

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

THRO

THRO Risk / Return Rank: 59
THRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
THRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
THRO Omega Ratio Rank: 59
THRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
THRO Martin Ratio Rank: 62

TRFM

TRFM Risk / Return Rank: 71
TRFM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
TRFM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
TRFM Omega Ratio Rank: 63
TRFM Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
TRFM Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

THRO vs. TRFM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF (THRO) and AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM). 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.

	THRO	TRFM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	2.34	-0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.88	2.97	-0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.38	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.46	4.04	-1.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.93	13.69	-2.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

THRO vs. TRFM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current THRO Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the TRFM Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of THRO and TRFM, 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

	THRO	TRFM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	2.34	-0.27
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.75	1.05	-0.30

Drawdowns

THRO vs. TRFM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum THRO drawdown since its inception was -26.54%, smaller than the maximum TRFM drawdown of -28.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for THRO and TRFM.

Drawdown Indicators

	THRO	TRFM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.54%	-28.40%	+1.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.87%	-12.99%	+2.12%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.07%	-28.40%	+9.33%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.32%	-1.60%	+1.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.68%	-6.61%	-0.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.45%	3.82%	-1.37%

Volatility

THRO vs. TRFM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF (THRO) is 3.25%, while AAM Transformers ETF (TRFM) has a volatility of 7.33%. This indicates that THRO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than TRFM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	THRO	TRFM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.25%	7.33%	-4.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.09%	17.46%	-7.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.99%	22.44%	-9.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.71%	26.92%	-8.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.71%	26.92%	-8.21%

THRO vs. TRFM - Expense Ratio Comparison

THRO has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than TRFM's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

THRO vs. TRFM - Dividend Comparison

THRO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, more than TRFM's 0.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
THRO iShares U.S. Thematic Rotation Active ETF	0.16%	0.15%	0.73%	0.55%	0.90%
TRFM AAM Transformers ETF	0.13%	0.17%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both THRO and TRFM in my portfolio?

THRO and TRFM have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, THRO or TRFM?

TRFM has higher volatility (7.33%) compared to THRO (3.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, THRO dropped -26.54% vs TRFM's -28.40%.

Which ETF is better, THRO or TRFM?

On 3-year performance, TRFM leads with 31.42% vs 24.61% for THRO. On fees, TRFM is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, THRO has been the lower-risk option at 3.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, THRO or TRFM?

Over the 3-year period, TRFM has performed better with a 31.42% return vs 24.61%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, THRO or TRFM?

TRFM is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for THRO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, THRO or TRFM?

THRO has the higher dividend yield at 0.16%, compared with 0.13% for TRFM.

What is the main difference between THRO and TRFM?

THRO is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while TRFM is Technology Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and AAM. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for THRO and 0.49% for TRFM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TRFM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 vs 2.06), 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.