CSNR vs. CCNR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CSNR (Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both Natural Resources funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CSNR returned 31.06% vs 50.76% for CCNR. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CSNR charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

CSNR vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CSNR achieves a 11.05% return, which is significantly lower than CCNR's 15.27% return.

CSNR

• 1D: -1.74%
• 1M: -7.34%
• YTD: 11.05%
• 6M: 10.21%
• 1Y: 31.06%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CCNR

• 1D: -1.98%
• 1M: -8.35%
• YTD: 15.27%
• 6M: 15.14%
• 1Y: 50.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CSNR vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	11.05%	26.83%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	15.27%	41.83%

Correlation

The correlation between CSNR and CCNR is 0.86, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2025	0.87

The correlation between CSNR and CCNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CSNR vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CSNR

CSNR Risk / Return Rank: 60
CSNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
CSNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CSNR Omega Ratio Rank: 53
CSNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
CSNR Martin Ratio Rank: 72

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 86
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 82
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

CSNR vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). 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.

	CSNR	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	2.71	-0.96
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.32	3.35	-1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.46	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	4.91	-1.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.10	20.65	-8.55

CSNR vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CSNR Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is lower than the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CSNR and CCNR, 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

CSNR vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSNR drawdown since its inception was -15.33%, smaller than the maximum CCNR drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSNR and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CSNR	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.33%	-20.06%	+4.73%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.18%	-10.38%	+0.20%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.18%	-10.38%	+0.20%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.97%	-3.63%	+1.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.57%	2.46%	+0.11%

Volatility

CSNR vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR) is 6.08%, while ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) has a volatility of 7.02%. This indicates that CSNR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CCNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CSNR	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.08%	7.02%	-0.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.51%	14.14%	+0.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.87%	18.83%	-0.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.02%	20.16%	-0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.02%	20.16%	-0.14%

CSNR vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CSNR has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

CSNR vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

CSNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.17%, less than CCNR's 3.02% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	3.02%	3.48%	1.27%
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	2.17%	2.39%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CSNR and CCNR in my portfolio?

CSNR and CCNR have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CSNR or CCNR?

CCNR has higher volatility (7.02%) compared to CSNR (6.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CSNR dropped -15.33% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, CSNR or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 50.76% vs 31.06% for CSNR. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, CSNR has been the lower-risk option at 6.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CSNR or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 50.76% return vs 31.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CSNR or CCNR?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CSNR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CSNR or CCNR?

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 3.02%, compared with 2.17% for CSNR.

What is the main difference between CSNR and CCNR?

They also come from different issuers: Cohen & Steers and ALPS. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CSNR and 0.39% for CCNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 1.75), 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.