CCNR vs. EMET

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) and EMET (VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CCNR is a Natural Resources fund actively managed by ALPS, while EMET is a Copper fund tracking the MVIS Global Clean-Tech Metals Index. CCNR is actively managed, while EMET is passively managed. Over the past year, CCNR returned 50.76% vs 87.54% for EMET. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CCNR charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for EMET.

Performance

CCNR vs. EMET - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CCNR achieves a 15.27% return, which is significantly higher than EMET's 11.62% return.

CCNR

• 1D: -1.98%
• 1M: -8.35%
• YTD: 15.27%
• 6M: 15.14%
• 1Y: 50.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMET

• 1D: -5.73%
• 1M: -5.77%
• YTD: 11.62%
• 6M: 11.02%
• 1Y: 87.54%
• 3Y*: 18.09%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CCNR vs. EMET - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	15.27%	46.48%	-7.79%
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	11.62%	81.22%	-16.83%

Correlation

The correlation between CCNR and EMET is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.74

The correlation between CCNR and EMET has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CCNR vs. EMET — Risk / Return Rank

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

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 86
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 82
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 91

EMET

EMET Risk / Return Rank: 69
EMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
EMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
EMET Omega Ratio Rank: 65
EMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
EMET Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

CCNR vs. EMET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET). 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.

	CCNR	EMET	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.71	2.30	+0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.35	2.67	+0.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.36	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.91	3.44	+1.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.65	11.10	+9.55

CCNR vs. EMET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CCNR Sharpe Ratio is 2.71, which is comparable to the EMET Sharpe Ratio of 2.30. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CCNR and EMET, 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

CCNR vs. EMET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CCNR drawdown since its inception was -20.06%, smaller than the maximum EMET drawdown of -53.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CCNR and EMET.

Drawdown Indicators

	CCNR	EMET	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.06%	-53.05%	+32.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.38%	-25.58%	+15.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-40.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.38%	-15.40%	+5.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.63%	-24.65%	+21.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	7.91%	-5.45%

Volatility

CCNR vs. EMET - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) is 7.02%, while VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) has a volatility of 15.63%. This indicates that CCNR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CCNR	EMET	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.02%	15.63%	-8.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.14%	33.60%	-19.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.83%	38.24%	-19.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.16%	33.37%	-13.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.16%	33.37%	-13.21%

CCNR vs. EMET - Expense Ratio Comparison

CCNR has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than EMET's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

CCNR vs. EMET - Dividend Comparison

CCNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.02%, more than EMET's 1.65% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	3.02%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	1.65%	1.84%	1.89%	2.02%	2.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CCNR and EMET in my portfolio?

CCNR and EMET have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CCNR or EMET?

EMET has higher volatility (15.63%) compared to CCNR (7.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CCNR dropped -20.06% vs EMET's -53.05%.

Which ETF is better, CCNR or EMET?

On 1-year performance, EMET leads with 87.54% vs 50.76% for CCNR. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, CCNR has been the lower-risk option at 7.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CCNR or EMET?

Over the 1-year period, EMET has performed better with a 87.54% return vs 50.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CCNR or EMET?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for EMET.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CCNR or EMET?

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 3.02%, compared with 1.65% for EMET.

What is the main difference between CCNR and EMET?

CCNR is categorized as Natural Resources, while EMET is Copper. They also come from different issuers: ALPS and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for CCNR and 0.61% for EMET.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.30), 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.