CMDT vs. ZSB

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) and ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) are both Commodities funds - CMDT tracks the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index while ZSB tracks the S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CMDT returned 16.90%/yr vs 6.63%/yr for ZSB. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMDT charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for ZSB.

Performance

CMDT vs. ZSB - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMDT achieves a 23.96% return, which is significantly higher than ZSB's 14.02% return.

CMDT

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: -0.63%
• YTD: 23.96%
• 6M: 24.09%
• 1Y: 35.85%
• 3Y*: 16.90%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ZSB

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: 2.34%
• YTD: 14.02%
• 6M: 28.85%
• 1Y: 78.36%
• 3Y*: 6.63%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CMDT vs. ZSB - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	23.96%	12.78%	6.93%	5.50%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	14.02%	64.34%	-19.70%	-20.70%

Correlation

The correlation between CMDT and ZSB is 0.23, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.23
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.33

The correlation between CMDT and ZSB shifts across timeframes, from 0.23 (1 year) to 0.34 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CMDT vs. ZSB - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CMDT	ZSB
Financial Services	100.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	90.9%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	8.3%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	0.8%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CMDT vs. ZSB — Risk / Return Rank

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

CMDT

CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 88
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 91

ZSB

ZSB Risk / Return Rank: 81
ZSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
ZSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
ZSB Omega Ratio Rank: 86
ZSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
ZSB Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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.

CMDT vs. ZSB - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) and USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB). 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.

	CMDT	ZSB	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.92	2.99	-0.08
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.92	3.38	+0.54
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.54	-0.04
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.03	4.77	+3.26
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	22.12	13.48	+8.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CMDT vs. ZSB - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMDT Sharpe Ratio is 2.92, which is comparable to the ZSB Sharpe Ratio of 2.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMDT and ZSB, 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

	CMDT	ZSB	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.92	2.99	-0.08
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.32	0.05	+1.27

Drawdowns

CMDT vs. ZSB - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMDT drawdown since its inception was -9.69%, smaller than the maximum ZSB drawdown of -49.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMDT and ZSB.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMDT	ZSB	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.69%	-49.26%	+39.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.49%	-16.75%	+12.26%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.69%	-43.22%	+33.53%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.86%	-3.87%	+1.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.69%	-30.98%	+28.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.63%	5.92%	-4.29%

Volatility

CMDT vs. ZSB - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) is 4.33%, while USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) has a volatility of 5.39%. This indicates that CMDT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ZSB based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMDT	ZSB	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.33%	5.39%	-1.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.30%	22.64%	-12.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.35%	26.31%	-13.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.21%	19.60%	-7.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.21%	19.60%	-7.39%

CMDT vs. ZSB - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMDT has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ZSB's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMDT vs. ZSB - Dividend Comparison

CMDT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.44%, more than ZSB's 0.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.44%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	0.81%	0.92%	2.96%	3.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CMDT and ZSB in my portfolio?

CMDT and ZSB have a correlation of 0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CMDT or ZSB?

ZSB has higher volatility (5.39%) compared to CMDT (4.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CMDT dropped -9.69% vs ZSB's -49.26%.

Which ETF is better, CMDT or ZSB?

On 3-year performance, CMDT leads with 16.90% vs 6.63% for ZSB. On fees, ZSB is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, CMDT has been the lower-risk option at 4.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CMDT or ZSB?

Over the 3-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 16.90% return vs 6.63%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CMDT or ZSB?

ZSB is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CMDT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CMDT or ZSB?

CMDT has the higher dividend yield at 2.44%, compared with 0.81% for ZSB.

What is the main difference between CMDT and ZSB?

CMDT tracks Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index, while ZSB tracks S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index. They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and USCF. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CMDT and 0.59% for ZSB.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.99 vs 2.92), 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.