CEFD vs. DZZ
CEFD (ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN) and DZZ (DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes) are both exchange-traded funds - CEFD is a fund fund tracking the S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%), while DZZ is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index-Optimum Yield Gold (-200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CEFD returned 2.85%/yr vs -8.56%/yr for DZZ. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. CEFD charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for DZZ.
Performance
CEFD vs. DZZ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CEFD achieves a 5.55% return, which is significantly higher than DZZ's -52.47% return.
CEFD
- 1D
- -0.83%
- 1M
- 0.88%
- YTD
- 5.55%
- 6M
- 5.82%
- 1Y
- 16.51%
- 3Y*
- 14.99%
- 5Y*
- 2.85%
- 10Y*
- —
DZZ
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- -12.68%
- YTD
- -52.47%
- 6M
- -48.59%
- 1Y
- -5.68%
- 3Y*
- -10.43%
- 5Y*
- -8.56%
- 10Y*
- -10.01%
CEFD vs. DZZ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 5.55% | 14.15% | 20.06% | 8.36% | -28.93% | 22.09% | 23.01% |
DZZ DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes | -52.47% | 132.78% | -35.06% | -8.14% | 2.79% | 0.56% | -21.32% |
Correlation
The correlation between CEFD and DZZ is -0.19, 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.19 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.07 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 2020 | -0.11 |
The correlation between CEFD and DZZ shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to -0.07 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CEFD vs. DZZ — Risk / Return Rank
CEFD
DZZ
CEFD vs. DZZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) and DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes (DZZ). 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.
| CEFD | DZZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.28 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.35 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.19 | +0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.33 | -0.07 | +1.40 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.09 | -0.10 | +6.19 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CEFD vs. DZZ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CEFD drawdown since its inception was -36.95%, smaller than the maximum DZZ drawdown of -96.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFD and DZZ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CEFD | DZZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.95% | -96.64% | +59.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -12.51% | -81.05% | +68.54% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.76% | -81.05% | +59.29% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -36.95% | -81.05% | +44.10% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -81.05% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.80% | -95.55% | +93.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.63% | -82.32% | +70.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.72% | 56.22% | -53.50% |
Volatility
CEFD vs. DZZ - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) is 4.13%, while DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes (DZZ) has a volatility of 15.04%. This indicates that CEFD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DZZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CEFD | DZZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.13% | 15.04% | -10.91% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.71% | 60.07% | -48.36% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.28% | 169.84% | -156.56% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.99% | 83.80% | -65.81% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.30% | 64.06% | -46.76% |
CEFD vs. DZZ - Expense Ratio Comparison
CEFD has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than DZZ's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
CEFD vs. DZZ - Dividend Comparison
CEFD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.84%, while DZZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 14.84% | 14.88% | 13.90% | 14.76% | 16.56% | 10.31% | 5.37% |
DZZ DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CEFD and DZZ have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
DZZ has higher volatility (15.04%) compared to CEFD (4.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEFD dropped -36.95% vs DZZ's -96.64%.
On 5-year performance, CEFD leads with 2.85% vs -8.56% for DZZ. On fees, DZZ is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, CEFD has been the lower-risk option at 4.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CEFD has performed better with a 2.85% return vs -8.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DZZ is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for CEFD.
CEFD has the higher dividend yield at 14.84%, compared with 0.00% for DZZ.
CEFD tracks S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%), while DZZ tracks Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index-Optimum Yield Gold (-200%). They also come from different issuers: UBS and Deutsche Bank. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for CEFD and 0.75% for DZZ.
CEFD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.25 vs -0.03), 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.
Find the right allocation for CEFD and DZZ
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer