CSNR vs. GNR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CSNR (Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF) and GNR (SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF) are both Natural Resources funds. CSNR is actively managed, while GNR is passively managed. Over the past year, CSNR returned 32.75% vs 30.88% for GNR. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CSNR charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GNR.

Performance

CSNR vs. GNR - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with CSNR having a 13.02% return and GNR slightly lower at 13.01%.

CSNR

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: -5.69%
• YTD: 13.02%
• 6M: 13.10%
• 1Y: 32.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GNR

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: -4.82%
• YTD: 13.01%
• 6M: 13.19%
• 1Y: 30.88%
• 3Y*: 13.46%
• 5Y*: 9.38%
• 10Y*: 10.52%

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

CSNR vs. GNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	13.02%	26.83%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	13.01%	21.50%

Correlation

The correlation between CSNR and GNR is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2025	0.93

The correlation between CSNR and GNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.93 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CSNR vs. GNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CSNR

CSNR Risk / Return Rank: 62
CSNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
CSNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
CSNR Omega Ratio Rank: 53
CSNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
CSNR Martin Ratio Rank: 73

GNR

GNR Risk / Return Rank: 62
GNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
GNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
GNR Omega Ratio Rank: 53
GNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
GNR Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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. GNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR) and SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR). 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	GNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.85	1.80	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	2.38	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.32	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.83	3.89	-0.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.17	13.28	-0.11

CSNR vs. GNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CSNR Sharpe Ratio is 1.85, which is comparable to the GNR Sharpe Ratio of 1.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CSNR and GNR, 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. GNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CSNR drawdown since its inception was -15.33%, smaller than the maximum GNR drawdown of -51.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSNR and GNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CSNR	GNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.33%	-51.37%	+36.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.59%	-7.97%	-0.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-21.15%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.66%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-48.59%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.59%	-7.46%	-1.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.95%	-14.92%	+12.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.49%	2.33%	+0.16%

Volatility

CSNR vs. GNR - Volatility Comparison

Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF (CSNR) and SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) have volatilities of 5.95% and 5.73%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CSNR	GNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.95%	5.73%	+0.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.39%	13.97%	+0.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.80%	17.24%	+0.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.98%	20.26%	-0.28%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.98%	21.89%	-1.91%

CSNR vs. GNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CSNR has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than GNR's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

CSNR vs. GNR - Dividend Comparison

CSNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, less than GNR's 2.63% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CSNR Cohen & Steers Natural Resources Active ETF	2.13%	2.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	2.63%	2.76%	4.73%	3.37%	4.37%	3.44%	2.78%	3.84%	3.51%	2.40%	2.06%	4.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CSNR and GNR in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, CSNR and GNR 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, CSNR or GNR?

CSNR has higher volatility (5.95%) compared to GNR (5.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CSNR dropped -15.33% vs GNR's -51.37%.

Which ETF is better, CSNR or GNR?

On 1-year performance, CSNR leads with 32.75% vs 30.88% for GNR. On fees, GNR is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, GNR has been the lower-risk option at 5.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CSNR or GNR?

Over the 1-year period, CSNR has performed better with a 32.75% return vs 30.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CSNR or GNR?

GNR is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CSNR.

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

GNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.63%, compared with 2.13% for CSNR.

What is the main difference between CSNR and GNR?

They also come from different issuers: Cohen & Steers and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CSNR and 0.40% for GNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs 1.80), 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.