CVLC vs LCTU
Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF vs iShares US Carbon Transition Readiness Aware Active ETF
Which is better, CVLC or LCTU?
CVLC has been ahead.
CVLC led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. LCTU is less concentrated, with 35.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.2%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | CVLC | LCTU |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Tie | 0.15%Tie |
| AUM | $1.0B | $1.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.93% | 0.97% |
| Holdings | 1,511 | 334 |
| YTD Return | +12.83%Best | +11.76% |
| 1Y Return | +17.38%Best | +15.34% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.00%Best | +21.21% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.70% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.2% | 12.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -19.9% | -19.8%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.7 years | $19,146Best | $18,922 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.2% | 35.5%Best |
| Fund Family | Calvert | iShares by BlackRock (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jan 30, 2023 | Apr 6, 2021 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 1, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.7 years).
CVLC vs LCTU growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 3.7 years both funds cover.
CVLC vs LCTU Performance
Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF (CVLC) is an ETF from Calvert and iShares US Carbon Transition Readiness Aware Active ETF (LCTU) is an ETF from iShares by BlackRock (US). Over the past year CVLC returned +17.38% while LCTU returned +15.34%. Year to date, CVLC is up 12.83% versus a gain of 11.76% for LCTU.
Over three years, CVLC compounded at +22.00% per year against +21.21% for LCTU. Across the full 4-year window we track, CVLC has the edge at +19.19% annualized vs +18.81%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CVLC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.2% compared with 12.5% for LCTU. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -19.9% for CVLC and -19.8% for LCTU. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.99. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CVLC charges 0.15% per year while LCTU charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $15 annually. On income, CVLC currently yields 0.93% against 0.97% for LCTU.
Holdings Overlap
78.3% of CVLC's money is in holdings LCTU also owns. 82.8% of LCTU's money is in holdings CVLC also owns.
Most of LCTU is already inside CVLC. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
256 positions in common, counted across the 759 positions we hold weights for in CVLC and 331 in LCTU, against full books of 1,511 and 334.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 59 positions for LCTU that do not appear in our book for CVLC (16.4% of the fund), and 487 for CVLC that do not appear in LCTU (20.9%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in CVLC | Weight in LCTU | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.80% | 8.16% | 0.36% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.03% | 7.17% | 0.14% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 5.49% | 4.94% | 0.55% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 5.35% | 2.49% | 2.86% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 3.63% | 3.08% | 0.55% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.48% | 2.04% | 0.44% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.88% | 1.66% | 0.22% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.66% | 1.64% | 0.02% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.52% | 1.27% | 0.25% |
| JPMJpmorgan Chase | 1.38% | 1.09% | 0.29% |
82.8% of LCTU is already inside CVLC.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, CVLC or LCTU?
CVLC has an expense ratio of 0.15% while LCTU charges 0.15%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, CVLC or LCTU?
Over the past year CVLC returned +17.38% vs +15.34% for LCTU, so CVLC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), CVLC annualized +19.19% vs +18.81% for LCTU. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CVLC or LCTU?
CVLC has been the more volatile fund at 13.2% annualized versus 12.5% for LCTU. Worst drawdown: CVLC -19.9% vs LCTU -19.8%.
Should I hold both CVLC and LCTU?
CVLC and LCTU have a monthly-return correlation of 0.99, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between CVLC and LCTU?
82.8% of LCTU's money is in holdings CVLC also owns. 82.8% of LCTU's is in holdings CVLC also owns. They hold 256 positions in common, counted across the 759 positions we hold weights for in CVLC and 331 in LCTU.
Which pays a higher dividend, CVLC or LCTU?
CVLC yields 0.93% while LCTU yields 0.97%, so LCTU currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LCTU better than CVLC?
CVLC led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.99. LCTU is less concentrated, with 35.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 38.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.