GRN vs. ATMP
GRN (iPath Series B Carbon ETN) and ATMP (Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - GRN is a Commodities fund tracking the Barclays Global Carbon II Index, while ATMP is a MLPs fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Select MLP VWAP. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GRN returned 8.97%/yr vs 18.49%/yr for ATMP. Their 0.15 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. GRN charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for ATMP.
Performance
GRN vs. ATMP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GRN achieves a -5.35% return, which is significantly lower than ATMP's 26.22% return.
GRN
- 1D
- -0.69%
- 1M
- 2.76%
- 6M
- 1.51%
- YTD
- -5.35%
- 1Y
- 14.99%
- 3Y*
- -1.14%
- 5Y*
- 8.97%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 17.42%
ATMP
- 1D
- 0.87%
- 1M
- 5.19%
- 6M
- 17.51%
- YTD
- 26.22%
- 1Y
- 23.85%
- 3Y*
- 20.30%
- 5Y*
- 18.49%
- 10Y*
- 5.16%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.84%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $521.25K | $462.49K | $511.48K | |
| $24.04K | $14.40K | $18.78K |
GRN vs. ATMP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN | -5.35% | 20.33% | -7.34% | -2.99% | -0.07% | 147.21% | 30.47% | -8.41% |
ATMP Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN | 26.22% | 1.73% | 31.66% | 14.51% | 20.71% | 33.06% | -34.39% | -2.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between GRN and ATMP is -0.10, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.10 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.02 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.06 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 10, 2019 | 0.15 |
The correlation between GRN and ATMP shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (1 year) to 0.15 (all time), 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
GRN vs. ATMP — Risk / Return Rank
GRN
ATMP
GRN vs. ATMP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) and Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP). 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.
| GRN | ATMP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.14 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.47 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.27 | -0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.43 | 2.81 | -2.38 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.05 | 6.57 | -5.53 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GRN vs. ATMP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GRN drawdown since its inception was -47.96%, smaller than the maximum ATMP drawdown of -80.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRN and ATMP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GRN | ATMP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -47.96% | -80.86% | +32.90% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.39% | -8.30% | -22.09% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -42.82% | -16.48% | -26.34% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -47.96% | -22.98% | -24.98% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -75.66% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.87% | -1.27% | -15.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -17.55% | -30.81% | +13.26% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.48% | 3.54% | +8.94% |
Volatility
GRN vs. ATMP - Volatility Comparison
iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) has a higher volatility of 9.21% compared to Barclays ETN+ Select MLP ETN (ATMP) at 5.01%. This indicates that GRN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ATMP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GRN | ATMP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.21% | 5.01% | +4.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.22% | 11.75% | +12.47% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.44% | 14.57% | +13.87% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 39.58% | 21.94% | +17.64% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 41.64% | 27.62% | +14.02% |
GRN vs. ATMP - Expense Ratio Comparison
GRN has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than ATMP's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
GRN vs. ATMP - Dividend Comparison
Neither GRN nor ATMP has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
GRN and ATMP have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GRN has higher volatility (9.21%) compared to ATMP (5.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRN dropped -47.96% vs ATMP's -80.86%.
On 5-year performance, ATMP leads with 18.49% vs 8.97% for GRN. On fees, GRN is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, ATMP has been the lower-risk option at 5.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, ATMP has performed better with a 18.49% return vs 8.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GRN is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ATMP.
GRN and ATMP have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
GRN is categorized as Commodities, while ATMP is MLPs. GRN tracks Barclays Global Carbon II Index, while ATMP tracks CIBC Atlas Select MLP VWAP. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRN and 0.95% for ATMP.
ATMP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 vs 0.46), 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 GRN and ATMP
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