FDT vs. CCNR

Last updated Jun 16, 2026

FDT (First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDT is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ AlphaDEX DM Ex-US Index, while CCNR is a Natural Resources fund actively managed by ALPS. FDT is passively managed, while CCNR is actively managed. Over the past year, FDT returned 53.96% vs 54.76% for CCNR. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDT charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

FDT vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund (FDT) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDT achieves a 26.48% return, which is significantly higher than CCNR's 21.64% return.

FDT

• 1D: 2.64%
• 1M: 3.53%
• YTD: 26.48%
• 6M: 26.98%
• 1Y: 53.96%
• 3Y*: 28.59%
• 5Y*: 13.14%
• 10Y*: 11.35%

CCNR

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: -3.64%
• YTD: 21.64%
• 6M: 23.54%
• 1Y: 54.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDT vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FDT First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund	26.48%	52.21%	-2.65%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	21.64%	46.48%	-7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between FDT and CCNR is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.66

The correlation between FDT and CCNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.65 to 0.66 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDT vs. CCNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDT	CCNR
Industrials	32.4%	7.3%
Technology	12.1%	0.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.9%	0.3%
Financial Services	9.9%	0.6%
Basic Materials	9.4%	33.1%
Energy	7.9%	41.2%
Real Estate	5.0%	0.5%
Utilities	4.8%	9.7%
Communication Services	2.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	7.7%
Healthcare	1.3%	-

Return for Risk

FDT vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDT

FDT Risk / Return Rank: 86
FDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
FDT Omega Ratio Rank: 88
FDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
FDT Martin Ratio Rank: 83

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 91
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 92
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 88
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

FDT vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund (FDT) 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.

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.

	FDT	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.75	2.95	-0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.51	3.62	-0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	1.50	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.04	7.01	-2.97
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.31	24.58	-9.27

FDT vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDT Sharpe Ratio is 2.75, which is comparable to the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 2.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDT and CCNR, 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

FDT vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDT drawdown since its inception was -46.10%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDT and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDT	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-46.10%	-20.06%	-26.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.41%	-7.85%	-5.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-32.80%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.10%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	-5.43%	+4.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.76%	-3.59%	-7.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.54%	2.23%	+1.31%

Volatility

FDT vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund (FDT) has a higher volatility of 9.32% compared to ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) at 6.77%. This indicates that FDT'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

	FDT	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.32%	6.77%	+2.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.44%	13.89%	+3.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.76%	18.68%	+1.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.50%	20.12%	-1.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.63%	20.12%	-1.49%

FDT vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDT has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDT vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

FDT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.82%, less than CCNR's 2.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.86%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FDT First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund	2.82%	3.27%	3.89%	4.36%	2.29%	3.80%	2.42%	2.78%	2.13%	1.57%	1.76%	1.83%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDT and CCNR in my portfolio?

FDT and CCNR have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDT or CCNR?

FDT has higher volatility (9.32%) compared to CCNR (6.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDT dropped -46.10% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, FDT or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 54.76% vs 53.96% for FDT. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, CCNR has been the lower-risk option at 6.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDT or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 54.76% return vs 53.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDT or CCNR?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FDT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDT or CCNR?

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.86%, compared with 2.82% for FDT.

What is the main difference between FDT and CCNR?

FDT is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while CCNR is Natural Resources. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and ALPS. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FDT and 0.39% for CCNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.95 vs 2.75), 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.