CSNR vs. EMET

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CSNR (Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF) and EMET (VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. CSNR is actively managed, while EMET is passively managed. Over the past year, CSNR returned 47.34% vs 116.88% for EMET. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CSNR charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.61%/yr for EMET.

Performance

CSNR vs. EMET - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CSNR achieves a 21.88% return, which is significantly lower than EMET's 24.96% return.

CSNR

• 1D: -0.56%
• 1M: 1.40%
• YTD: 21.88%
• 6M: 24.62%
• 1Y: 47.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

EMET

• 1D: -3.09%
• 1M: 10.55%
• YTD: 24.96%
• 6M: 36.66%
• 1Y: 116.88%
• 3Y*: 21.61%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CSNR vs. EMET - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	21.88%	26.55%
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	24.96%	75.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CSNR and EMET is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 6, 2025	0.65

The correlation between CSNR and EMET has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.65 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CSNR vs. EMET — Risk / Return Rank

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

CSNR

CSNR Risk / Return Rank: 86
CSNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CSNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CSNR Omega Ratio Rank: 81
CSNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CSNR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

EMET

EMET Risk / Return Rank: 83
EMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
EMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
EMET Omega Ratio Rank: 80
EMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
EMET Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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. EMET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR) and VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET). 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.

	CSNR	EMET	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.81	3.27	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.59	3.49	+0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.48	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.67	4.60	+1.08
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	22.27	15.70	+6.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CSNR vs. EMET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CSNR Sharpe Ratio is 2.81, which is comparable to the EMET Sharpe Ratio of 3.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CSNR and EMET, 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

	CSNR	EMET	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.81	3.27	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.97	0.25	+1.72

Drawdowns

CSNR vs. EMET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSNR drawdown since its inception was -15.33%, smaller than the maximum EMET drawdown of -53.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSNR and EMET.

Drawdown Indicators

	CSNR	EMET	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.33%	-53.05%	+37.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.39%	-25.58%	+17.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-40.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.42%	-5.29%	+3.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.82%	-24.83%	+23.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.13%	7.47%	-5.34%

Volatility

CSNR vs. EMET - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR) is 4.24%, while VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) has a volatility of 12.59%. This indicates that CSNR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EMET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CSNR	EMET	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.24%	12.59%	-8.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.65%	30.81%	-17.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.94%	35.96%	-19.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.77%	32.96%	-13.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.77%	32.96%	-13.19%

CSNR vs. EMET - Expense Ratio Comparison

CSNR has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than EMET's 0.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

CSNR vs. EMET - Dividend Comparison

CSNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.98%, more than EMET's 1.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	1.98%	2.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	1.47%	1.84%	1.89%	2.02%	2.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CSNR and EMET in my portfolio?

CSNR and EMET have a correlation of 0.64, 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 EMET?

EMET has higher volatility (12.59%) compared to CSNR (4.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CSNR dropped -15.33% vs EMET's -53.05%.

Which ETF is better, CSNR or EMET?

On 1-year performance, EMET leads with 116.88% vs 47.34% for CSNR. On fees, CSNR is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CSNR has been the lower-risk option at 4.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CSNR or EMET?

Over the 1-year period, EMET has performed better with a 116.88% return vs 47.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CSNR or EMET?

CSNR is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for EMET.

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

CSNR has the higher dividend yield at 1.98%, compared with 1.47% for EMET.

What is the main difference between CSNR and EMET?

They also come from different issuers: Cohen & Steers and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CSNR and 0.61% for EMET.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EMET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.27 vs 2.81), 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.