CCNR vs. LGRO

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO).

CCNR and LGRO are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CCNR is an actively managed fund by ALPS. It was launched on Jul 10, 2024. LGRO is an actively managed fund by ALPS. It was launched on Aug 22, 2023.

Performance

CCNR vs. LGRO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

CCNR vs. LGRO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	21.61%	46.48%	-8.12%
LGRO Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF	-9.68%	18.15%	9.89%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CCNR achieves a 21.61% return, which is significantly higher than LGRO's -9.68% return.

CCNR

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: -2.12%
• YTD: 21.61%
• 6M: 32.84%
• 1Y: 69.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

LGRO

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: -5.21%
• YTD: -9.68%
• 6M: -8.07%
• 1Y: 15.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CCNR vs. LGRO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CCNR has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than LGRO's 0.50% expense ratio.

LGRO

Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF

CCNR

ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF

Return for Risk

CCNR vs. LGRO — Risk / Return Rank

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

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 97
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

LGRO

LGRO Risk / Return Rank: 36
LGRO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
LGRO Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
LGRO Omega Ratio Rank: 38
LGRO Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
LGRO Martin Ratio Rank: 35

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. LGRO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO). 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.

	CCNR	LGRO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.12	0.69	+2.43
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.68	1.15	+2.53
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.16	+0.40
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.68	1.09	+3.59
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	25.78	3.59	+22.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CCNR vs. LGRO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CCNR Sharpe Ratio is 3.12, which is higher than the LGRO Sharpe Ratio of 0.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CCNR and LGRO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CCNR	LGRO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.12	0.69	+2.43
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.63	0.83	+0.80

Correlation

The correlation between CCNR and LGRO is 0.44, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

CCNR vs. LGRO - Dividend Comparison

CCNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.86%, more than LGRO's 0.38% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.86%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%
LGRO Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF	0.38%	0.31%	0.39%	0.26%

Drawdowns

CCNR vs. LGRO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CCNR drawdown since its inception was -20.06%, smaller than the maximum LGRO drawdown of -23.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CCNR and LGRO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CCNR	LGRO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.06%	-23.26%	+3.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.00%	-15.24%	+0.24%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.12%	-12.44%	+10.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.81%	-3.39%	-0.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.73%	4.63%	-1.90%

Volatility

CCNR vs. LGRO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) is 5.32%, while Level Four Large Cap Growth Active ETF (LGRO) has a volatility of 5.87%. This indicates that CCNR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LGRO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CCNR	LGRO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.32%	5.87%	-0.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.70%	12.38%	+2.32%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.40%	23.17%	-0.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.39%	19.56%	+0.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.39%	19.56%	+0.83%