GRN vs. CCOM
GRN (iPath Series B Carbon ETN) and CCOM (Simplify Chinese Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF) are both Commodities funds. GRN is passively managed, while CCOM is actively managed. Their -0.14 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. GRN charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.99%/yr for CCOM.
Performance
GRN vs. CCOM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
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%
CCOM
- 1D
- 0.27%
- 1M
- -1.20%
- 6M
- -3.35%
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $529.10 | $1.63K | $5.18K | |
| $24.04K | $14.40K | $18.78K |
GRN vs. CCOM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN | -5.49% |
CCOM Simplify Chinese Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF | -3.65% |
Correlation
The correlation between GRN and CCOM is -0.14, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 27, 2026 | -0.14 |
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. CCOM — Risk / Return Rank
GRN
CCOM
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
GRN vs. CCOM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) and Simplify Chinese Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF (CCOM). 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 | CCOM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.43 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.05 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GRN vs. CCOM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GRN drawdown since its inception was -47.96%, which is greater than CCOM's maximum drawdown of -7.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRN and CCOM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GRN | CCOM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -47.96% | -7.44% | -40.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.39% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -42.82% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -47.96% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.87% | -5.61% | -11.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -17.55% | -3.33% | -14.22% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.48% | — | — |
Volatility
GRN vs. CCOM - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GRN | CCOM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.21% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 24.22% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.44% | 12.53% | +15.91% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 39.58% | 12.53% | +27.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 41.64% | 12.53% | +29.11% |
GRN vs. CCOM - Expense Ratio Comparison
GRN has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than CCOM's 0.99% expense ratio.
Dividends
GRN vs. CCOM - Dividend Comparison
GRN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CCOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.26%.
| Position | TTM |
|---|---|
CCOM Simplify Chinese Commodities Strategy No K-1 ETF | 1.26% |
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GRN and CCOM have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, GRN is cheaper at 0.75% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GRN is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for CCOM.
CCOM has the higher dividend yield at 1.26%, compared with 0.00% for GRN.
They also come from different issuers: Barclays Capital and Simplify. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRN and 0.99% for CCOM.
Find the right allocation for GRN and CCOM
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