CTWO vs. GSG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CTWO (COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust) and GSG (iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust) are both Commodities funds. Over the past year, CTWO returned 1.48% vs 27.65% for GSG. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. CTWO charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for GSG.

Performance

CTWO vs. GSG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust (CTWO) and iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CTWO achieves a -13.60% return, which is significantly lower than GSG's 25.54% return.

CTWO

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 1.18%
• YTD: -13.60%
• 6M: -12.94%
• 1Y: 1.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GSG

• 1D: -1.03%
• 1M: -12.93%
• YTD: 25.54%
• 6M: 23.88%
• 1Y: 27.65%
• 3Y*: 14.02%
• 5Y*: 12.78%
• 10Y*: 6.58%

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

CTWO vs. GSG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CTWO COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust	-13.60%	4.42%
GSG iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust	25.54%	-1.96%

Correlation

The correlation between CTWO and GSG is -0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 20, 2025	-0.06

Return for Risk

CTWO vs. GSG — Risk / Return Rank

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

CTWO

CTWO Risk / Return Rank: 10
CTWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
CTWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
CTWO Omega Ratio Rank: 10
CTWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
CTWO Martin Ratio Rank: 9

GSG

GSG Risk / Return Rank: 37
GSG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
GSG Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
GSG Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GSG Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
GSG Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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.

CTWO vs. GSG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust (CTWO) and iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG). 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.

	CTWO	GSG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.05	1.22	-1.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.26	1.73	-1.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	1.23	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.05	1.66	-1.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.10	6.95	-6.85

CTWO vs. GSG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CTWO Sharpe Ratio is 0.05, which is lower than the GSG Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CTWO and GSG, 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

CTWO vs. GSG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CTWO drawdown since its inception was -30.13%, smaller than the maximum GSG drawdown of -89.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CTWO and GSG.

Drawdown Indicators

	CTWO	GSG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.13%	-89.62%	+59.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.13%	-16.74%	-13.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.74%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.12%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-57.64%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.44%	-62.10%	+38.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.57%	-63.69%	+51.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.60%	4.01%	+10.59%

Volatility

CTWO vs. GSG - Volatility Comparison

COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust (CTWO) has a higher volatility of 8.27% compared to iShares S&P GSCI Commodity-Indexed Trust (GSG) at 5.46%. This indicates that CTWO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GSG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CTWO	GSG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.27%	5.46%	+2.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.34%	20.82%	+3.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.61%	23.17%	+4.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.25%	22.67%	+6.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.25%	22.01%	+7.24%

CTWO vs. GSG - Expense Ratio Comparison

CTWO has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than GSG's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

CTWO vs. GSG - Dividend Comparison

Neither CTWO nor GSG has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CTWO and GSG in my portfolio?

CTWO and GSG have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CTWO or GSG?

CTWO has higher volatility (8.27%) compared to GSG (5.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CTWO dropped -30.13% vs GSG's -89.62%.

Which ETF is better, CTWO or GSG?

On 1-year performance, GSG leads with 27.65% vs 1.48% for CTWO. On fees, GSG is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, GSG has been the lower-risk option at 5.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CTWO or GSG?

Over the 1-year period, GSG has performed better with a 27.65% return vs 1.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CTWO or GSG?

GSG is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for CTWO.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CTWO or GSG?

CTWO and GSG have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between CTWO and GSG?

They also come from different issuers: COtwo Advisors and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for CTWO and 0.75% for GSG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GSG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs 0.05), 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.