CMCI vs. GRN

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CMCI (VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF) and GRN (iPath Series B Carbon ETN) are both Commodities funds - CMCI tracks the UBS Bloomberg CMCI Composite Total Return Index while GRN tracks the Barclays Global Carbon II Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CMCI returned 29.90% vs 7.07% for GRN. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMCI charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GRN.

Performance

CMCI vs. GRN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI) and iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMCI achieves a 21.96% return, which is significantly higher than GRN's -10.45% return.

CMCI

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: -1.73%
• YTD: 21.96%
• 6M: 22.52%
• 1Y: 29.90%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GRN

• 1D: -2.02%
• 1M: 2.13%
• YTD: -10.45%
• 6M: -7.22%
• 1Y: 7.07%
• 3Y*: -1.57%
• 5Y*: 9.08%
• 10Y*: —

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

CMCI vs. GRN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CMCI VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF	21.96%	7.90%	5.68%	-2.87%
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN	-10.45%	20.33%	-7.34%	-11.90%

Correlation

The correlation between CMCI and GRN is 0.00, 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	0.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 24, 2023	0.06

Return for Risk

CMCI vs. GRN — Risk / Return Rank

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

CMCI

CMCI Risk / Return Rank: 80
CMCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
CMCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
CMCI Omega Ratio Rank: 75
CMCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
CMCI Martin Ratio Rank: 80

GRN

GRN Risk / Return Rank: 13
GRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
GRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
GRN Omega Ratio Rank: 14
GRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
GRN Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

CMCI vs. GRN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI) 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.

	CMCI	GRN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	0.26	+2.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.32	0.52	+2.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.07	+0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.97	0.23	+5.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.52	0.60	+14.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CMCI vs. GRN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMCI Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is higher than the GRN Sharpe Ratio of 0.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMCI and GRN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CMCI	GRN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.46	0.26	+2.20
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.23	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	0.41	+0.50

Drawdowns

CMCI vs. GRN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMCI drawdown since its inception was -11.54%, smaller than the maximum GRN drawdown of -47.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMCI and GRN.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMCI	GRN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.54%	-47.96%	+36.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.03%	-30.39%	+25.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-45.30%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-47.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.94%	-21.35%	+17.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.54%	-17.54%	+14.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.93%	11.87%	-9.94%

Volatility

CMCI vs. GRN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI) is 4.29%, while iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) has a volatility of 5.88%. This indicates that CMCI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GRN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMCI	GRN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.29%	5.88%	-1.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.19%	24.53%	-14.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.23%	27.73%	-15.50%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.63%	39.83%	-27.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.63%	41.94%	-29.31%

CMCI vs. GRN - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMCI has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than GRN's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMCI vs. GRN - Dividend Comparison

CMCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.11%, while GRN has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMCI VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF	8.11%	9.89%	3.93%	1.64%
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CMCI and GRN in my portfolio?

CMCI and GRN have a correlation of 0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CMCI or GRN?

GRN has higher volatility (5.88%) compared to CMCI (4.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CMCI dropped -11.54% vs GRN's -47.96%.

Which ETF is better, CMCI or GRN?

On 1-year performance, CMCI leads with 29.90% vs 7.07% for GRN. On fees, CMCI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, CMCI has been the lower-risk option at 4.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CMCI or GRN?

Over the 1-year period, CMCI has performed better with a 29.90% return vs 7.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CMCI or GRN?

CMCI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRN.

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

CMCI has the higher dividend yield at 8.11%, compared with 0.00% for GRN.

What is the main difference between CMCI and GRN?

CMCI tracks UBS Bloomberg CMCI Composite Total Return Index, while GRN tracks Barclays Global Carbon II Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Barclays Capital. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CMCI and 0.75% for GRN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CMCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 0.26), 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.