CMDT vs. ZTWO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) and ZTWO (F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index, while ZTWO is a Short-Term Bond fund tracking the ICE 2-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CMDT returned 35.85% vs 4.02% for ZTWO. At a correlation of -0.22, they often move in opposite directions. CMDT charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for ZTWO.

Performance

CMDT vs. ZTWO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) and F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTWO). 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 ZTWO's 0.89% return.

CMDT

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

ZTWO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 0.89%
• 6M: 1.21%
• 1Y: 4.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CMDT vs. ZTWO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	23.96%	12.78%	2.04%
ZTWO F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	0.89%	5.49%	0.36%

Correlation

The correlation between CMDT and ZTWO is -0.30, 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	-0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2024	-0.22

Return for Risk

CMDT vs. ZTWO — 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

ZTWO

ZTWO Risk / Return Rank: 90
ZTWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ZTWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
ZTWO Omega Ratio Rank: 93
ZTWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
ZTWO Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. ZTWO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) and F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTWO). 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	ZTWO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.92	3.09	-0.17
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.92	4.96	-1.04
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.64	-0.14
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.03	4.32	+3.71
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	22.12	20.46	+1.66
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. ZTWO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMDT Sharpe Ratio is 2.92, which is comparable to the ZTWO Sharpe Ratio of 3.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMDT and ZTWO, 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	ZTWO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.92	3.09	-0.17
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.32	3.16	-1.83

Drawdowns

CMDT vs. ZTWO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMDT drawdown since its inception was -9.69%, which is greater than ZTWO's maximum drawdown of -0.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMDT and ZTWO.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMDT	ZTWO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.69%	-0.93%	-8.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.49%	-0.93%	-3.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.69%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.86%	-0.11%	-2.75%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.69%	-0.10%	-2.59%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.63%	0.20%	+1.43%

Volatility

CMDT vs. ZTWO - Volatility Comparison

PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) has a higher volatility of 4.33% compared to F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTWO) at 0.42%. This indicates that CMDT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ZTWO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMDT	ZTWO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.33%	0.42%	+3.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.30%	0.97%	+9.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.35%	1.31%	+11.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.21%	1.49%	+10.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.21%	1.49%	+10.72%

CMDT vs. ZTWO - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMDT has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ZTWO's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMDT vs. ZTWO - Dividend Comparison

CMDT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.44%, less than ZTWO's 4.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.44%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%
ZTWO F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	4.12%	4.31%	0.39%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CMDT and ZTWO in my portfolio?

CMDT and ZTWO have a correlation of -0.30, 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 ZTWO?

CMDT has higher volatility (4.33%) compared to ZTWO (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CMDT dropped -9.69% vs ZTWO's -0.93%.

Which ETF is better, CMDT or ZTWO?

On 1-year performance, CMDT leads with 35.85% vs 4.02% for ZTWO. On fees, ZTWO is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, ZTWO has been the lower-risk option at 0.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CMDT or ZTWO?

Over the 1-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 35.85% return vs 4.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CMDT or ZTWO?

ZTWO is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CMDT.

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

ZTWO has the higher dividend yield at 4.12%, compared with 2.44% for CMDT.

What is the main difference between CMDT and ZTWO?

CMDT is categorized as Commodities, while ZTWO is Short-Term Bond. CMDT tracks Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index, while ZTWO tracks ICE 2-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CMDT and 0.15% for ZTWO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZTWO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.09 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.