FPA vs. CCNR

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

FPA (First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FPA is a Asia Pacific Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ AlphaDEX Asia Pacific Ex-Japan Index, while CCNR is a Natural Resources fund actively managed by ALPS. FPA is passively managed, while CCNR is actively managed. Over the past year, FPA returned 65.35% vs 55.12% for CCNR. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FPA charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

FPA vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) 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, FPA achieves a 47.02% return, which is significantly higher than CCNR's 21.92% return.

FPA

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 3.70%
• YTD: 47.02%
• 6M: 47.32%
• 1Y: 65.35%
• 3Y*: 29.68%
• 5Y*: 12.60%
• 10Y*: 11.11%

CCNR

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: -3.42%
• YTD: 21.92%
• 6M: 23.45%
• 1Y: 55.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FPA vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	47.02%	43.16%	-2.24%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	21.92%	46.48%	-7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between FPA and CCNR is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.55

The correlation between FPA and CCNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.49 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

FPA vs. CCNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FPA	CCNR
Industrials	32.7%	7.3%
Technology	25.2%	0.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.3%	0.3%
Financial Services	8.6%	0.6%
Real Estate	6.2%	0.5%
Energy	5.4%	41.2%
Utilities	5.1%	9.7%
Basic Materials	4.2%	33.1%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	7.7%
Communication Services	2.6%	-
Healthcare	0.8%	-

Return for Risk

FPA vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

FPA

FPA Risk / Return Rank: 83
FPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
FPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
FPA Omega Ratio Rank: 81
FPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FPA Martin Ratio Rank: 84

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 93
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 90
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 95

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.

FPA vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) 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.

	FPA	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	3.05	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.02	3.71	-0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.51	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.32	7.25	-2.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.88	25.70	-10.82

FPA vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FPA Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is comparable to the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 3.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FPA 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

FPA vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FPA drawdown since its inception was -52.91%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FPA and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	FPA	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.91%	-20.06%	-32.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.37%	-7.85%	-7.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.66%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-34.54%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.91%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.94%	-5.21%	-1.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.47%	-3.58%	-9.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.46%	2.21%	+2.25%

Volatility

FPA vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund (FPA) has a higher volatility of 14.55% compared to ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) at 6.78%. This indicates that FPA'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

	FPA	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.55%	6.78%	+7.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.45%	13.94%	+10.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.61%	18.66%	+8.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.43%	20.14%	+4.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.63%	20.14%	+2.49%

FPA vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FPA vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

FPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.63%, more 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%
FPA First Trust Asia Pacific ex-Japan AlphaDEX Fund	3.63%	4.71%	3.40%	3.02%	4.22%	5.12%	1.59%	3.90%	2.81%	3.15%	2.42%	1.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FPA and CCNR in my portfolio?

FPA and CCNR have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FPA or CCNR?

FPA has higher volatility (14.55%) compared to CCNR (6.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FPA dropped -52.91% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, FPA or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, FPA leads with 65.35% vs 55.12% for CCNR. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, CCNR has been the lower-risk option at 6.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FPA or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, FPA has performed better with a 65.35% return vs 55.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FPA or CCNR?

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

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

FPA has the higher dividend yield at 3.63%, compared with 2.86% for CCNR.

What is the main difference between FPA and CCNR?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.05 vs 2.41), 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.