BWET vs. COMT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BWET (Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF) and COMT (iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF) are both Commodities funds - BWET tracks the Breakwave Wet Freight Futures Index while COMT tracks the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, BWET returned 123.86%/yr vs 12.01%/yr for COMT. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BWET charges 3.50%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for COMT.

Performance

BWET vs. COMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF (BWET) and iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BWET achieves a 968.33% return, which is significantly higher than COMT's 23.88% return.

BWET

• 1D: -5.48%
• 1M: 18.43%
• YTD: 968.33%
• 6M: 944.72%
• 1Y: 1,424.52%
• 3Y*: 123.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

COMT

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: -11.91%
• YTD: 23.88%
• 6M: 22.75%
• 1Y: 25.27%
• 3Y*: 12.01%
• 5Y*: 10.76%
• 10Y*: 7.96%

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

BWET vs. COMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BWET Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF	968.33%	96.22%	-39.21%	14.13%
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF	23.88%	6.07%	5.96%	2.61%

Correlation

The correlation between BWET and COMT is 0.05, 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	0.05
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 3, 2023	0.04

Return for Risk

BWET vs. COMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

BWET

BWET Risk / Return Rank: 98
BWET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BWET Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
BWET Omega Ratio Rank: 97
BWET Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
BWET Martin Ratio Rank: 99

COMT

COMT Risk / Return Rank: 36
COMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
COMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
COMT Omega Ratio Rank: 34
COMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
COMT Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

BWET vs. COMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF (BWET) and iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT). 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.

	BWET	COMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	14.65	1.20	+13.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	6.07	1.71	+4.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.87	1.22	+0.65
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	47.03	1.63	+45.40
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	147.28	6.99	+140.29

BWET vs. COMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BWET Sharpe Ratio is 14.65, which is higher than the COMT Sharpe Ratio of 1.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BWET and COMT, 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

BWET vs. COMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BWET drawdown since its inception was -56.90%, which is greater than COMT's maximum drawdown of -51.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BWET and COMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	BWET	COMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.90%	-51.89%	-5.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.64%	-15.58%	-15.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-56.81%	-15.58%	-41.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.00%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.48%	-15.58%	+10.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-23.76%	-24.00%	+0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.60%	3.65%	+7.95%

Volatility

BWET vs. COMT - Volatility Comparison

Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF (BWET) has a higher volatility of 26.27% compared to iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT) at 5.02%. This indicates that BWET's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than COMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BWET	COMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	26.27%	5.02%	+21.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	89.01%	19.24%	+69.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	98.57%	21.45%	+77.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	70.47%	21.13%	+49.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	70.47%	18.86%	+51.61%

BWET vs. COMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

BWET has a 3.50% expense ratio, which is higher than COMT's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

BWET vs. COMT - Dividend Comparison

BWET has not paid dividends to shareholders, while COMT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.25%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BWET Breakwave Tanker Shipping ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF	6.25%	7.74%	4.90%	5.19%	29.79%	17.79%	0.36%	2.61%	11.65%	5.16%	0.52%	1.44%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BWET and COMT in my portfolio?

BWET and COMT have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BWET or COMT?

BWET has higher volatility (26.27%) compared to COMT (5.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BWET dropped -56.90% vs COMT's -51.89%.

Which ETF is better, BWET or COMT?

On 3-year performance, BWET leads with 123.86% vs 12.01% for COMT. On fees, COMT is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, COMT has been the lower-risk option at 5.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BWET or COMT?

Over the 3-year period, BWET has performed better with a 123.86% return vs 12.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BWET or COMT?

COMT is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 3.50% for BWET.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BWET or COMT?

COMT has the higher dividend yield at 6.25%, compared with 0.00% for BWET.

What is the main difference between BWET and COMT?

BWET tracks Breakwave Wet Freight Futures Index, while COMT tracks S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: Amplify and iShares. Their fees differ too: 3.50% for BWET and 0.48% for COMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BWET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (14.65 vs 1.20), 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.