EMET vs. CCNR

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR).

EMET and CCNR are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. EMET is a passively managed fund by VanEck that tracks the performance of the MVIS Global Clean-Tech Metals Index. It was launched on Nov 9, 2021. CCNR is an actively managed fund by ALPS. It was launched on Jul 10, 2024.

Performance

EMET vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

EMET vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	11.18%	81.22%	-17.37%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	21.61%	46.48%	-8.12%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMET achieves a 11.18% return, which is significantly lower than CCNR's 21.61% return.

EMET

• 1D: 2.40%
• 1M: -13.41%
• YTD: 11.18%
• 6M: 31.79%
• 1Y: 100.94%
• 3Y*: 15.44%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CCNR

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: -2.12%
• YTD: 21.61%
• 6M: 32.84%
• 1Y: 69.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EMET vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMET has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

EMET

VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF

CCNR

ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF

Return for Risk

EMET vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMET

EMET Risk / Return Rank: 94
EMET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
EMET Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
EMET Omega Ratio Rank: 93
EMET Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
EMET Martin Ratio Rank: 93

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 97
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

EMET vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). 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.

	EMET	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.68	3.12	-0.44
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	3.68	-0.65
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.56	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.94	4.68	-0.74
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	15.07	25.78	-10.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EMET vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMET Sharpe Ratio is 2.68, which is comparable to the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 3.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMET and CCNR, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EMET	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.68	3.12	-0.44
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	1.63	-1.46

Correlation

The correlation between EMET and CCNR is 0.76, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.

Dividends

EMET vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

EMET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.66%, less than CCNR's 2.86% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
EMET VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF	1.66%	1.84%	1.89%	2.02%	2.56%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.86%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

EMET vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMET drawdown since its inception was -53.05%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMET and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMET	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.05%	-20.06%	-32.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.58%	-15.00%	-10.58%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.74%	-2.12%	-13.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-25.44%	-3.81%	-21.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.69%	2.73%	+3.96%

Volatility

EMET vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Copper and Green Metals ETF (EMET) has a higher volatility of 14.72% compared to ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) at 5.32%. This indicates that EMET's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMET	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.72%	5.32%	+9.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	29.86%	14.70%	+15.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	37.91%	22.40%	+15.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	32.69%	20.39%	+12.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	32.69%	20.39%	+12.30%