CCNR vs. GNR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) and GNR (SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF) are both Natural Resources funds. CCNR is actively managed, while GNR is passively managed. Over the past year, CCNR returned 50.76% vs 29.22% for GNR. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CCNR charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GNR.

Performance

CCNR vs. GNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR). 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 GNR's 10.87% return.

CCNR

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

GNR

• 1D: -1.89%
• 1M: -6.62%
• YTD: 10.87%
• 6M: 10.38%
• 1Y: 29.22%
• 3Y*: 12.75%
• 5Y*: 8.78%
• 10Y*: 10.31%

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

CCNR vs. GNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	15.27%	46.48%	-7.79%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	10.87%	28.68%	-9.21%

Correlation

The correlation between CCNR and GNR is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.90

The correlation between CCNR and GNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

CCNR vs. GNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CCNR	GNR
Basic Materials	34.5%	52.1%
Energy	34.5%	35.4%
Utilities	9.4%	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	8.3%	4.7%
Industrials	7.1%	0.2%
Technology	6.0%	-
Financial Services	0.6%	0.0%
Real Estate	0.5%	0.8%
Consumer Cyclical	0.3%	6.7%
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	0.0%

Return for Risk

CCNR vs. GNR — 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

GNR

GNR Risk / Return Rank: 57
GNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
GNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
GNR Omega Ratio Rank: 50
GNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
GNR Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. GNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR). 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	GNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.71	1.70	+1.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.35	2.24	+1.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.30	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.91	3.19	+1.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.65	12.20	+8.45

CCNR vs. GNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CCNR Sharpe Ratio is 2.71, which is higher than the GNR Sharpe Ratio of 1.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CCNR and GNR, 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. GNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CCNR drawdown since its inception was -20.06%, smaller than the maximum GNR drawdown of -51.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CCNR and GNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CCNR	GNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.06%	-51.37%	+31.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.38%	-9.20%	-1.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-21.15%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.66%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-48.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.38%	-9.20%	-1.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.63%	-14.92%	+11.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	2.40%	+0.06%

Volatility

CCNR vs. GNR - Volatility Comparison

ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) has a higher volatility of 7.02% compared to SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) at 5.94%. This indicates that CCNR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CCNR	GNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.02%	5.94%	+1.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.14%	14.11%	+0.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.83%	17.32%	+1.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.16%	20.28%	-0.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.16%	21.82%	-1.66%

CCNR vs. GNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CCNR has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than GNR's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

CCNR vs. GNR - Dividend Comparison

CCNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.02%, more than GNR's 2.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	3.02%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	2.68%	2.76%	4.73%	3.37%	4.37%	3.44%	2.78%	3.84%	3.51%	2.40%	2.06%	4.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CCNR and GNR in my portfolio?

CCNR and GNR have a correlation of 0.88, 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 GNR?

CCNR has higher volatility (7.02%) compared to GNR (5.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CCNR dropped -20.06% vs GNR's -51.37%.

Which ETF is better, CCNR or GNR?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 50.76% vs 29.22% for GNR. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, GNR has been the lower-risk option at 5.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CCNR or GNR?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 50.76% return vs 29.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CCNR or GNR?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GNR.

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

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 3.02%, compared with 2.68% for GNR.

What is the main difference between CCNR and GNR?

They also come from different issuers: ALPS and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for CCNR and 0.40% for GNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 1.70), 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.