CUT vs. WOOD
CUT (Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF) and WOOD (iShares Global Timber & Forestry ETF) are both Materials funds - CUT tracks the Beacon Global Timber Index while WOOD tracks the S&P Global Timber & Forestry Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CUT returned 4.69%/yr vs 6.12%/yr for WOOD. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CUT charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.46%/yr for WOOD.
Performance
CUT vs. WOOD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CUT achieves a -4.36% return, which is significantly higher than WOOD's -5.94% return. Over the past 10 years, CUT has underperformed WOOD with an annualized return of 4.69%, while WOOD has yielded a comparatively higher 6.12% annualized return.
CUT
- 1D
- -0.62%
- 1M
- 3.03%
- YTD
- -4.36%
- 6M
- -3.02%
- 1Y
- -4.86%
- 3Y*
- 1.55%
- 5Y*
- -3.30%
- 10Y*
- 4.69%
WOOD
- 1D
- -0.26%
- 1M
- 3.05%
- YTD
- -5.94%
- 6M
- -4.22%
- 1Y
- -5.09%
- 3Y*
- 0.46%
- 5Y*
- -2.94%
- 10Y*
- 6.12%
CUT vs. WOOD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CUT Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF | -4.36% | -5.92% | 1.82% | 8.65% | -16.38% | 12.29% | 18.05% | 23.35% | -21.70% | 30.41% |
WOOD iShares Global Timber & Forestry ETF | -5.94% | -3.27% | -4.21% | 13.84% | -19.39% | 17.03% | 20.36% | 19.75% | -17.73% | 34.49% |
Correlation
The correlation between CUT and WOOD is 0.91, 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 | 0.91 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.90 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.92 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.91 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2008 | 0.91 |
The correlation between CUT and WOOD has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.
CUT vs. WOOD - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CUT
WOOD
Basic Materials
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
-
Real Estate
Financial Services
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Technology
-
Communication Services
-
-
Energy
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Basic Materials
CUT
WOOD
Consumer Cyclical
CUT
WOOD
Industrials
CUT
WOOD
-
Real Estate
CUT
WOOD
Financial Services
CUT
WOOD
-
Consumer Defensive
CUT
WOOD
-
Technology
CUT
WOOD
-
Communication Services
CUT
-
WOOD
-
Energy
CUT
-
WOOD
-
Healthcare
CUT
-
WOOD
-
Utilities
CUT
-
WOOD
-
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
CUT vs. WOOD — Risk / Return Rank
CUT
WOOD
CUT vs. WOOD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT) and iShares Global Timber & Forestry ETF (WOOD). 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.
| CUT | WOOD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.01 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.01 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.97 | 0.97 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.25 | -0.24 | -0.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.51 | -0.51 | -0.01 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CUT vs. WOOD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CUT drawdown since its inception was -70.03%, which is greater than WOOD's maximum drawdown of -63.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CUT and WOOD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CUT | WOOD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -70.03% | -63.25% | -6.78% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -19.62% | -21.64% | +2.02% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.23% | -22.79% | +0.56% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -30.40% | -30.71% | +0.31% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -45.76% | -50.20% | +4.44% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.00% | -23.49% | +1.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.28% | -14.79% | -0.49% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 9.50% | 10.07% | -0.57% |
Volatility
CUT vs. WOOD - Volatility Comparison
Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT) and iShares Global Timber & Forestry ETF (WOOD) have volatilities of 4.94% and 4.88%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CUT | WOOD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.94% | 4.88% | +0.06% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.23% | 14.16% | +0.07% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.86% | 18.88% | -0.02% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 18.51% | 19.73% | -1.22% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.21% | 21.85% | -1.64% |
CUT vs. WOOD - Expense Ratio Comparison
CUT has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than WOOD's 0.46% expense ratio.
Dividends
CUT vs. WOOD - Dividend Comparison
CUT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.57%, more than WOOD's 2.51% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CUT Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF | 2.57% | 2.46% | 3.05% | 2.44% | 2.58% | 1.57% | 1.65% | 2.67% | 3.43% | 1.57% | 2.08% | 1.52% |
WOOD iShares Global Timber & Forestry ETF | 2.51% | 2.51% | 2.09% | 1.64% | 2.26% | 1.24% | 0.98% | 1.85% | 2.82% | 1.19% | 1.65% | 2.04% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.91, CUT and WOOD 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.
CUT has higher volatility (4.94%) compared to WOOD (4.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CUT dropped -70.03% vs WOOD's -63.25%.
On 10-year performance, WOOD leads with 6.12% vs 4.69% for CUT. On fees, WOOD is cheaper at 0.46% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, WOOD has performed better with a 6.12% return vs 4.69%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
WOOD is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CUT.
CUT has the higher dividend yield at 2.57%, compared with 2.51% for WOOD.
CUT tracks Beacon Global Timber Index, while WOOD tracks S&P Global Timber & Forestry Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CUT and 0.46% for WOOD.
CUT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.26 vs -0.27), 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.
Find the right allocation for CUT and WOOD
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