CNBS vs. MJ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

CNBS (Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF) and MJ (Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNBS is a Cannabis fund actively managed by Amplify, while MJ is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Prime Alternative Harvest Index. CNBS is actively managed, while MJ is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNBS returned -33.11%/yr vs -33.92%/yr for MJ. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

CNBS vs. MJ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF (CNBS) and Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNBS achieves a -12.28% return, which is significantly higher than MJ's -20.97% return.

CNBS

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: -13.53%
• 6M: 0.51%
• YTD: -12.28%
• 1Y: 32.27%
• 3Y*: -8.99%
• 5Y*: -33.11%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -25.62%

MJ

• 1D: 2.59%
• 1M: -8.25%
• 6M: -10.34%
• YTD: -20.97%
• 1Y: 12.98%
• 3Y*: -11.63%
• 5Y*: -33.92%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -27.53%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CNBS Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF	$114.17K	$102.50K	$278.36K
MJ Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF	$502.35K	$669.94K	$959.28K

CNBS vs. MJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CNBS Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF	-12.28%	15.33%	-29.41%	-16.11%	-63.98%	-19.02%	31.94%	-45.72%
MJ Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF	-20.97%	13.07%	-23.97%	-24.18%	-61.55%	-22.79%	-16.18%	-41.93%

Correlation

The correlation between CNBS and MJ is 0.91, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2019	0.89

The correlation between CNBS and MJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

CNBS vs. MJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CNBS	MJ
Healthcare	63.1%	76.4%
Real Estate	13.8%	3.3%
Technology	10.7%	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.0%	18.3%
Consumer Cyclical	3.4%	0.9%
Financial Services	1.9%	0.3%
Industrials	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Energy	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CNBS vs. MJ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CNBS

CNBS Risk / Return Rank: 28
CNBS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
CNBS Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
CNBS Omega Ratio Rank: 36
CNBS Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
CNBS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

MJ

MJ Risk / Return Rank: 19
MJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
MJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
MJ Omega Ratio Rank: 25
MJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
MJ Martin Ratio Rank: 14

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CNBS vs. MJ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF (CNBS) and Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ). 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.

	CNBS	MJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	0.15	+0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.46	1.01	+0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.11	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.79	0.27	+0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.33	0.41	+0.92

CNBS vs. MJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CNBS Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is higher than the MJ Sharpe Ratio of 0.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNBS and MJ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CNBS vs. MJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNBS drawdown since its inception was -95.71%, roughly equal to the maximum MJ drawdown of -96.55%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNBS and MJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNBS	MJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-95.71%	-96.55%	+0.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-51.25%	-48.66%	-2.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-73.41%	-69.73%	-3.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-92.63%	-91.79%	-0.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-92.36%	-94.90%	+2.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-71.69%	-69.68%	-2.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.52%	31.55%	-1.03%

Volatility

CNBS vs. MJ - Volatility Comparison

Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF (CNBS) has a higher volatility of 12.37% compared to Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ) at 10.68%. This indicates that CNBS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNBS	MJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.37%	10.68%	+1.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	52.33%	39.33%	+13.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	104.84%	86.18%	+18.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	65.17%	59.99%	+5.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	61.12%	55.44%	+5.68%

CNBS vs. MJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CNBS and MJ have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

CNBS vs. MJ - Dividend Comparison

CNBS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CNBS Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF	0.00%	0.00%	43.54%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.58%	0.58%
MJ Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF	2.51%	1.98%	13.80%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNBS and MJ in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, CNBS and MJ move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, CNBS or MJ?

CNBS has higher volatility (12.37%) compared to MJ (10.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CNBS dropped -95.71% vs MJ's -96.55%.

Which ETF is better, CNBS or MJ?

On 5-year performance, CNBS leads with -33.11% vs -33.92% for MJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. On volatility, MJ has been the lower-risk option at 10.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CNBS or MJ?

Over the 5-year period, CNBS has performed better with a -33.11% return vs -33.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNBS or MJ?

CNBS and MJ have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CNBS or MJ?

MJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.51%, compared with 0.00% for CNBS.

What is the main difference between CNBS and MJ?

CNBS is categorized as Cannabis, while MJ is Small Cap Blend Equities.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNBS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.39 vs 0.15), 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.