CCNR vs. MNBD

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) and MNBD (ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CCNR is a Natural Resources fund actively managed by ALPS, while MNBD is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by ALPS. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CCNR returned 50.33% vs 6.33% for MNBD. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CCNR charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for MNBD.

Performance

CCNR vs. MNBD - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CCNR achieves a 13.61% return, which is significantly higher than MNBD's 2.03% return.

CCNR

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: -10.14%
• YTD: 13.61%
• 6M: 13.08%
• 1Y: 50.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MNBD

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 1.14%
• YTD: 2.03%
• 6M: 2.15%
• 1Y: 6.33%
• 3Y*: 4.45%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CCNR vs. MNBD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	13.61%	46.48%	-7.79%
MNBD ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF	2.03%	5.15%	1.43%

Correlation

The correlation between CCNR and MNBD is 0.10, 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	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.08

Return for Risk

CCNR vs. MNBD — Risk / Return Rank

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

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 87
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 86
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 91

MNBD

MNBD Risk / Return Rank: 78
MNBD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
MNBD Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
MNBD Omega Ratio Rank: 93
MNBD Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
MNBD Martin Ratio Rank: 55

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. MNBD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF (MNBD). 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	MNBD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	2.55	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.30	3.73	-0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.55	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.14	2.67	+1.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.81	8.50	+10.30

CCNR vs. MNBD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CCNR Sharpe Ratio is 2.68, which is comparable to the MNBD Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CCNR and MNBD, 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. MNBD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CCNR drawdown since its inception was -20.06%, which is greater than MNBD's maximum drawdown of -5.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CCNR and MNBD.

Drawdown Indicators

	CCNR	MNBD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.06%	-5.89%	-14.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.21%	-2.38%	-9.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.97%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.67%	-0.23%	-11.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.67%	-1.09%	-2.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.68%	0.75%	+1.93%

Volatility

CCNR vs. MNBD - Volatility Comparison

ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) has a higher volatility of 7.22% compared to ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF (MNBD) at 0.67%. This indicates that CCNR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MNBD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CCNR	MNBD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.22%	0.67%	+6.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.21%	1.96%	+12.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.94%	2.50%	+16.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.18%	3.75%	+16.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.18%	3.75%	+16.43%

CCNR vs. MNBD - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CCNR vs. MNBD - Dividend Comparison

CCNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.07%, less than MNBD's 3.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	3.07%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%
MNBD ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF	3.32%	3.32%	3.83%	3.44%	2.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CCNR and MNBD in my portfolio?

CCNR and MNBD have a correlation of 0.10, 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 MNBD?

CCNR has higher volatility (7.22%) compared to MNBD (0.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CCNR dropped -20.06% vs MNBD's -5.89%.

Which ETF is better, CCNR or MNBD?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 50.33% vs 6.33% for MNBD. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, MNBD has been the lower-risk option at 0.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CCNR or MNBD?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 50.33% return vs 6.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CCNR or MNBD?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for MNBD.

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

MNBD has the higher dividend yield at 3.32%, compared with 3.07% for CCNR.

What is the main difference between CCNR and MNBD?

CCNR is categorized as Natural Resources, while MNBD is Municipal Bonds. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for CCNR and 0.50% for MNBD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 vs 2.55), 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.