CCNR vs. PICK

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) and PICK (iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CCNR is a Natural Resources fund actively managed by ALPS, while PICK is a Metals fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Select Metals & Mining Producers ex Gold and Silver Investable Market Index. CCNR is actively managed, while PICK is passively managed. Over the past year, CCNR returned 52.68% vs 69.31% for PICK. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.39% expense ratio.

Performance

CCNR vs. PICK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CCNR having a 17.60% return and PICK slightly lower at 17.36%.

CCNR

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: -6.50%
• YTD: 17.60%
• 6M: 17.78%
• 1Y: 52.68%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PICK

• 1D: -4.38%
• 1M: -5.22%
• YTD: 17.36%
• 6M: 17.02%
• 1Y: 69.31%
• 3Y*: 18.27%
• 5Y*: 10.54%
• 10Y*: 16.67%

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

CCNR vs. PICK - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	17.60%	46.48%	-7.79%
PICK iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF	17.36%	51.89%	-14.83%

Correlation

The correlation between CCNR and PICK is 0.76, 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	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.78

The correlation between CCNR and PICK has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

CCNR vs. PICK - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CCNR	PICK
Basic Materials	34.5%	96.0%
Energy	34.5%	0.0%
Utilities	9.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	8.3%	0.1%
Industrials	7.1%	3.1%
Technology	6.0%	0.9%
Financial Services	0.6%	0.1%
Real Estate	0.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	0.3%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	-

Return for Risk

CCNR vs. PICK — Risk / Return Rank

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

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 88
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

PICK

PICK Risk / Return Rank: 71
PICK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
PICK Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
PICK Omega Ratio Rank: 69
PICK Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
PICK Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. PICK - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) and iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK). 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	PICK	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.83	2.31	+0.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.49	2.79	+0.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.39	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.86	3.56	+2.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.23	13.38	+8.85

CCNR vs. PICK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CCNR Sharpe Ratio is 2.83, which is comparable to the PICK Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CCNR and PICK, 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. PICK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CCNR drawdown since its inception was -20.06%, smaller than the maximum PICK drawdown of -68.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CCNR and PICK.

Drawdown Indicators

	CCNR	PICK	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.06%	-68.87%	+48.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.04%	-19.54%	+10.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-32.52%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-36.37%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-52.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.57%	-12.59%	+4.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.62%	-24.06%	+20.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.38%	5.20%	-2.82%

Volatility

CCNR vs. PICK - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) is 6.85%, while iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK) has a volatility of 13.12%. This indicates that CCNR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PICK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CCNR	PICK	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.85%	13.12%	-6.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.97%	26.56%	-12.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.74%	30.14%	-11.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.12%	28.14%	-8.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.12%	28.34%	-8.22%

CCNR vs. PICK - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CCNR and PICK have an expense ratio of 0.39%.

Dividends

CCNR vs. PICK - Dividend Comparison

CCNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.96%, more than PICK's 2.21% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.96%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PICK iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF	2.21%	2.88%	3.26%	4.19%	6.93%	5.89%	2.27%	5.51%	4.77%	2.41%	1.15%	15.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CCNR and PICK in my portfolio?

CCNR and PICK have a correlation of 0.76, 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 PICK?

PICK has higher volatility (13.12%) compared to CCNR (6.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CCNR dropped -20.06% vs PICK's -68.87%.

Which ETF is better, CCNR or PICK?

On 1-year performance, PICK leads with 69.31% vs 52.68% for CCNR. Both ETFs have the same 0.39% expense ratio. On volatility, CCNR has been the lower-risk option at 6.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CCNR or PICK?

Over the 1-year period, PICK has performed better with a 69.31% return vs 52.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CCNR or PICK?

CCNR and PICK have the same expense ratio: 0.39% per year.

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

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 2.21% for PICK.

What is the main difference between CCNR and PICK?

CCNR is categorized as Natural Resources, while PICK is Metals. They also come from different issuers: ALPS and iShares.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 2.31), 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.