GNR vs. CCNR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GNR (SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. GNR is passively managed, while CCNR is actively managed. Over the past year, GNR returned 43.10% vs 69.39% for CCNR. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GNR charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

GNR vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) 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, GNR achieves a 20.27% return, which is significantly lower than CCNR's 27.16% return.

GNR

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: 1.20%
• YTD: 20.27%
• 6M: 23.12%
• 1Y: 43.10%
• 3Y*: 15.55%
• 5Y*: 9.73%
• 10Y*: 10.91%

CCNR

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: 1.95%
• YTD: 27.16%
• 6M: 30.28%
• 1Y: 69.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GNR vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	20.27%	28.68%	-10.03%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	27.16%	46.48%	-8.12%

Correlation

The correlation between GNR and CCNR is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2024	0.90

The correlation between GNR and CCNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

GNR vs. CCNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GNR	CCNR
Basic Materials	50.3%	31.6%
Energy	37.6%	38.0%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	8.5%
Real Estate	0.8%	0.5%
Industrials	0.2%	7.5%
Financial Services	0.0%	0.6%
Healthcare	0.0%	-
Utilities	0.0%	8.5%
Communication Services	-	-
Technology	-	4.3%

Return for Risk

GNR vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

GNR

GNR Risk / Return Rank: 82
GNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
GNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
GNR Omega Ratio Rank: 76
GNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
GNR Martin Ratio Rank: 90

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 95
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

GNR vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) 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.

	GNR	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.64	3.94	-1.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.38	4.76	-1.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.65	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.43	10.78	-5.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.28	35.10	-13.82
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GNR vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GNR Sharpe Ratio is 2.64, which is lower than the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 3.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GNR 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GNR	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.64	3.94	-1.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.48	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.26	1.66	-1.40

Drawdowns

GNR vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GNR drawdown since its inception was -51.37%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GNR and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	GNR	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.37%	-20.06%	-31.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.97%	-6.47%	-1.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.15%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.66%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-48.59%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.51%	-1.14%	-0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.95%	-3.56%	-11.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.03%	1.98%	+0.05%

Volatility

GNR vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) have volatilities of 4.53% and 4.48%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	GNR	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.53%	4.48%	+0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.23%	12.77%	+0.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.39%	17.74%	-1.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.23%	19.85%	+0.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.88%	19.85%	+2.03%

GNR vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

GNR has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

GNR vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

GNR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.47%, less than CCNR's 2.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.74%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	2.47%	2.76%	4.73%	3.37%	4.37%	3.44%	2.78%	3.84%	3.51%	2.40%	2.06%	4.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GNR and CCNR in my portfolio?

GNR and CCNR have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GNR or CCNR?

GNR has higher volatility (4.53%) compared to CCNR (4.48%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GNR dropped -51.37% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, GNR or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 69.39% vs 43.10% for GNR. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GNR or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 69.39% return vs 43.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GNR or CCNR?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for GNR.

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

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.74%, compared with 2.47% for GNR.

What is the main difference between GNR and CCNR?

They also come from different issuers: State Street and ALPS. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for GNR and 0.39% for CCNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.94 vs 2.64), 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.