ATMP vs. GRN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ATMP (Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN) and GRN (iPath Series B Carbon ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - ATMP is a MLPs fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Select MLP VWAP, while GRN is a Commodities fund tracking the Barclays Global Carbon II Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ATMP returned 15.87%/yr vs 9.52%/yr for GRN. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ATMP charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRN.

Performance

ATMP vs. GRN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP) and iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ATMP achieves a 20.02% return, which is significantly higher than GRN's -8.60% return.

ATMP

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: -2.32%
• YTD: 20.02%
• 6M: 19.57%
• 1Y: 18.01%
• 3Y*: 21.17%
• 5Y*: 15.87%
• 10Y*: 4.90%

GRN

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: 8.55%
• YTD: -8.60%
• 6M: -4.48%
• 1Y: 9.03%
• 3Y*: 0.39%
• 5Y*: 9.52%
• 10Y*: —

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

ATMP vs. GRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ATMP Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN	20.02%	1.73%	31.66%	14.51%	20.71%	33.06%	-34.39%	-3.37%
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN	-8.60%	20.33%	-7.34%	-2.99%	-0.07%	147.21%	30.47%	-8.41%

Correlation

The correlation between ATMP and GRN is -0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.07
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.02
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 11, 2019	0.15

The correlation between ATMP and GRN shifts across timeframes, from -0.07 (1 year) to 0.15 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

ATMP vs. GRN — Risk / Return Rank

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

ATMP

ATMP Risk / Return Rank: 39
ATMP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
ATMP Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
ATMP Omega Ratio Rank: 33
ATMP Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
ATMP Martin Ratio Rank: 38

GRN

GRN Risk / Return Rank: 13
GRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
GRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
GRN Omega Ratio Rank: 14
GRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
GRN Martin Ratio Rank: 13

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.

ATMP vs. GRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP) and iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN). 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.

	ATMP	GRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	0.33	+0.98
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.87	0.61	+1.25
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.08	+0.14
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	0.30	+2.21
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	6.16	0.77	+5.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ATMP vs. GRN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ATMP Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is higher than the GRN Sharpe Ratio of 0.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ATMP and GRN, 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

	ATMP	GRN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.31	0.33	+0.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72	0.24	+0.48
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.18	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.09	0.42	-0.33

Drawdowns

ATMP vs. GRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ATMP drawdown since its inception was -80.86%, which is greater than GRN's maximum drawdown of -47.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ATMP and GRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	ATMP	GRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-80.86%	-47.96%	-32.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.26%	-30.39%	+23.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.48%	-45.30%	+28.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.98%	-47.96%	+24.98%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-75.66%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.07%	-19.73%	+13.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-31.15%	-17.54%	-13.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.95%	11.83%	-8.88%

Volatility

ATMP vs. GRN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP) is 5.61%, while iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) has a volatility of 6.65%. This indicates that ATMP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GRN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ATMP	GRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.61%	6.65%	-1.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.72%	24.47%	-13.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.00%	27.74%	-13.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.23%	39.82%	-17.59%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.68%	41.95%	-14.27%

ATMP vs. GRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

ATMP has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than GRN's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

ATMP vs. GRN - Dividend Comparison

Neither ATMP nor GRN has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ATMP and GRN in my portfolio?

ATMP and GRN have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ATMP or GRN?

GRN has higher volatility (6.65%) compared to ATMP (5.61%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ATMP dropped -80.86% vs GRN's -47.96%.

Which ETF is better, ATMP or GRN?

On 5-year performance, ATMP leads with 15.87% vs 9.52% for GRN. On fees, GRN is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, ATMP has been the lower-risk option at 5.61%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ATMP or GRN?

Over the 5-year period, ATMP has performed better with a 15.87% return vs 9.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ATMP or GRN?

GRN is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ATMP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ATMP or GRN?

ATMP and GRN have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between ATMP and GRN?

ATMP is categorized as MLPs, while GRN is Commodities. ATMP tracks CIBC Atlas Select MLP VWAP, while GRN tracks Barclays Global Carbon II Index. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ATMP and 0.75% for GRN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ATMP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.31 vs 0.33), 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.