DZZ vs. CEFD
DZZ (DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes) and CEFD (ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - DZZ is a Leveraged Commodities fund tracking the Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index-Optimum Yield Gold (-200%), while CEFD is a fund fund tracking the S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DZZ returned -4.82%/yr vs 3.13%/yr for CEFD. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. DZZ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for CEFD.
Performance
DZZ vs. CEFD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, DZZ achieves a -48.31% return, which is significantly lower than CEFD's 6.26% return.
DZZ
- 1D
- 1.45%
- 1M
- -16.65%
- YTD
- -48.31%
- 6M
- -41.62%
- 1Y
- 11.20%
- 3Y*
- -6.90%
- 5Y*
- -4.82%
- 10Y*
- -10.52%
CEFD
- 1D
- -0.98%
- 1M
- 2.61%
- YTD
- 6.26%
- 6M
- 6.56%
- 1Y
- 18.31%
- 3Y*
- 15.60%
- 5Y*
- 3.13%
- 10Y*
- —
DZZ vs. CEFD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DZZ DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes | -48.31% | 132.78% | -35.06% | -8.14% | 2.79% | 0.56% | -22.24% |
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 6.26% | 14.15% | 20.06% | 8.36% | -28.93% | 22.09% | 21.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between DZZ and CEFD is -0.17, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.17 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.07 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2020 | -0.11 |
The correlation between DZZ and CEFD shifts across timeframes, from -0.17 (1 year) to -0.07 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
DZZ vs. CEFD — Risk / Return Rank
DZZ
CEFD
DZZ vs. CEFD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes (DZZ) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD). 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.
| DZZ | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.36 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.34 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.22 | 1.29 | -0.06 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.14 | 1.47 | -1.33 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.21 | 6.84 | -6.63 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| DZZ | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.07 | 1.43 | -1.36 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.06 | 0.18 | -0.23 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | -0.16 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | -0.23 | 0.52 | -0.75 |
Drawdowns
DZZ vs. CEFD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum DZZ drawdown since its inception was -96.64%, which is greater than CEFD's maximum drawdown of -36.95%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DZZ and CEFD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| DZZ | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -96.64% | -36.95% | -59.69% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -80.84% | -12.51% | -68.33% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -80.84% | -21.76% | -59.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -80.84% | -36.95% | -43.89% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -80.84% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -95.16% | -1.14% | -94.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -82.30% | -11.72% | -70.58% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 53.19% | 2.68% | +50.51% |
Volatility
DZZ vs. CEFD - Volatility Comparison
DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes (DZZ) has a higher volatility of 30.21% compared to ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN (CEFD) at 4.05%. This indicates that DZZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| DZZ | CEFD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 30.21% | 4.05% | +26.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 59.65% | 11.27% | +48.38% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 169.45% | 12.86% | +156.59% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 83.63% | 17.93% | +65.70% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 64.05% | 17.31% | +46.74% |
DZZ vs. CEFD - Expense Ratio Comparison
DZZ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFD's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
DZZ vs. CEFD - Dividend Comparison
DZZ has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CEFD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 14.58%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFD ETRACS Monthly Pay 1.5x Leveraged Closed-End Fund Index ETN | 14.58% | 14.88% | 13.90% | 14.76% | 16.56% | 10.31% | 5.37% |
DZZ DB Gold Double Short Exchange Traded Notes | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
DZZ and CEFD have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
DZZ has higher volatility (30.21%) compared to CEFD (4.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, DZZ dropped -96.64% vs CEFD's -36.95%.
On 5-year performance, CEFD leads with 3.13% vs -4.82% for DZZ. On fees, DZZ is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, CEFD has been the lower-risk option at 4.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CEFD has performed better with a 3.13% return vs -4.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DZZ is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for CEFD.
CEFD has the higher dividend yield at 14.58%, compared with 0.00% for DZZ.
DZZ tracks Deutsche Bank Liquid Commodity Index-Optimum Yield Gold (-200%), while CEFD tracks S-Network Composite Closed-End Fund Index (150%). They also come from different issuers: Deutsche Bank and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for DZZ and 0.95% for CEFD.
CEFD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.43 vs 0.07), 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 DZZ and CEFD
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