CCOM vs. GRN

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

CCOM (Simplify Chinese Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF) and GRN (iPath Series B Carbon ETN) are both Commodities funds. CCOM is actively managed, while GRN is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. CCOM charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRN.

Performance

CCOM vs. GRN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Simplify Chinese Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (CCOM) and iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

CCOM

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: -2.31%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GRN

• 1D: -2.52%
• 1M: -0.95%
• 6M: -12.64%
• YTD: -8.23%
• 1Y: 11.37%
• 3Y*: -2.83%
• 5Y*: 8.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

CCOM vs. GRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
CCOM Simplify Chinese Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF	-4.96%
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN	-8.36%

Correlation

The correlation between CCOM and GRN is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2026	-0.15

Return for Risk

CCOM vs. GRN — Risk / Return Rank

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

CCOM

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

GRN

GRN Risk / Return Rank: 16
GRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
GRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
GRN Omega Ratio Rank: 17
GRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
GRN Martin Ratio Rank: 15

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.

CCOM vs. GRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify Chinese Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (CCOM) and iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN). 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.

	CCOM	GRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	0.41	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	0.72	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.10	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	0.38	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	0.92	—

Drawdowns

CCOM vs. GRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CCOM drawdown since its inception was -7.44%, smaller than the maximum GRN drawdown of -47.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CCOM and GRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	CCOM	GRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.44%	-47.96%	+40.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-30.39%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-44.33%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-47.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.90%	-19.40%	+12.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.03%	-17.56%	+14.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	12.34%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CCOM	GRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.24%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	25.13%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.93%	27.77%	-14.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.93%	39.59%	-26.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.93%	41.68%	-28.75%

CCOM vs. GRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

CCOM has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than GRN's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

CCOM vs. GRN - Dividend Comparison

CCOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.28%, while GRN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM
CCOM Simplify Chinese Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF	1.28%
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CCOM and GRN in my portfolio?

CCOM and GRN have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CCOM or GRN?

On fees, GRN is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CCOM or GRN?

GRN is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for CCOM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CCOM or GRN?

CCOM has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.00% for GRN.

What is the main difference between CCOM and GRN?

They also come from different issuers: Simplify and Barclays Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for CCOM and 0.75% for GRN.