CTWO vs. ISCMF
CTWO (COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust) and ISCMF (iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF) are both Commodities funds. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CTWO charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ISCMF.
Performance
CTWO vs. ISCMF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CTWO achieves a -15.24% return, which is significantly lower than ISCMF's 22.87% return.
CTWO
- 1D
- 2.00%
- 1M
- 1.51%
- YTD
- -15.24%
- 6M
- -10.98%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ISCMF
- 1D
- 0.00%
- 1M
- -0.67%
- YTD
- 22.87%
- 6M
- 27.76%
- 1Y
- 37.85%
- 3Y*
- 15.20%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CTWO vs. ISCMF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CTWO COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust | -15.24% | 15.78% |
ISCMF iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF | 22.87% | 6.86% |
Correlation
The correlation between CTWO and ISCMF is 0.00, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2025 | 0.00 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CTWO vs. ISCMF — Risk / Return Rank
CTWO
ISCMF
CTWO vs. ISCMF - 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 Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). 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.
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CTWO | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | — | 2.05 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.07 | 0.45 | -0.52 |
Drawdowns
CTWO vs. ISCMF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CTWO drawdown since its inception was -30.13%, which is greater than ISCMF's maximum drawdown of -25.42%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CTWO and ISCMF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CTWO | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.13% | -25.42% | -4.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -5.69% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -7.62% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -24.89% | -5.26% | -19.63% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.19% | -13.43% | +4.24% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.42% | — |
Volatility
CTWO vs. ISCMF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CTWO | ISCMF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 7.14% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 15.90% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.94% | 18.53% | +9.41% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 27.94% | 14.38% | +13.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.94% | 14.38% | +13.56% |
CTWO vs. ISCMF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CTWO has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than ISCMF's 0.19% expense ratio.
Dividends
CTWO vs. ISCMF - Dividend Comparison
Neither CTWO nor ISCMF has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CTWO and ISCMF have a correlation of 0.00, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ISCMF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ISCMF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for CTWO.
CTWO and ISCMF have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
They also come from different issuers: COtwo Advisors and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for CTWO and 0.19% for ISCMF.
Find the right allocation for CTWO and ISCMF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer