CTWO vs. ISCMF

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CTWO (COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust) and ISCMF (iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF) are both Commodities funds. Over the past year, CTWO returned 1.48% vs 31.30% for ISCMF. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CTWO charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for ISCMF.

Performance

CTWO vs. ISCMF - 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 Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF). 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 ISCMF's 22.87% return.

CTWO

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

ISCMF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -4.99%
• YTD: 22.87%
• 6M: 22.87%
• 1Y: 31.30%
• 3Y*: 16.78%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CTWO vs. ISCMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CTWO COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust	-13.60%	4.42%
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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.00
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 20, 2025	0.01

Return for Risk

CTWO vs. ISCMF — 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

ISCMF

ISCMF Risk / Return Rank: 78
ISCMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
ISCMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
ISCMF Omega Ratio Rank: 98
ISCMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
ISCMF Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. 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.

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	ISCMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.05	1.76	-1.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.26	3.18	-2.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	2.31	-1.27
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.05	5.53	-5.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.10	11.85	-11.75

CTWO vs. ISCMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CTWO Sharpe Ratio is 0.05, which is lower than the ISCMF Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CTWO and ISCMF, 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. 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.

Drawdown Indicators

	CTWO	ISCMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.13%	-25.42%	-4.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.13%	-5.69%	-24.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-23.44%	-5.26%	-18.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.57%	-13.35%	+0.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	14.60%	2.65%	+11.95%

Volatility

CTWO vs. ISCMF - Volatility Comparison

COtwo Advisors Physical European Carbon Allowance Trust (CTWO) has a higher volatility of 8.27% compared to iShares Diversified Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ISCMF) at 5.11%. This indicates that CTWO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ISCMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CTWO	ISCMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.27%	5.11%	+3.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.34%	15.45%	+8.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.61%	17.84%	+9.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	29.25%	14.29%	+14.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	29.25%	14.29%	+14.96%

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.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CTWO and ISCMF in my portfolio?

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.

Which is riskier, CTWO or ISCMF?

CTWO has higher volatility (8.27%) compared to ISCMF (5.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CTWO dropped -30.13% vs ISCMF's -25.42%.

Which ETF is better, CTWO or ISCMF?

On 1-year performance, ISCMF leads with 31.30% vs 1.48% for CTWO. On fees, ISCMF is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, ISCMF has been the lower-risk option at 5.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CTWO or ISCMF?

Over the 1-year period, ISCMF has performed better with a 31.30% 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 ISCMF?

ISCMF is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for CTWO.

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

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

What is the main difference between CTWO and ISCMF?

They also come from different issuers: COtwo Advisors and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for CTWO and 0.19% for ISCMF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ISCMF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.76 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.