GRN vs. CMCI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GRN (iPath Series B Carbon ETN) and CMCI (VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF) are both Commodities funds - GRN tracks the Barclays Global Carbon II Index while CMCI tracks the UBS Bloomberg CMCI Composite Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GRN returned 9.03% vs 30.85% for CMCI. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GRN charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMCI.

Performance

GRN vs. CMCI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) and VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GRN achieves a -8.60% return, which is significantly lower than CMCI's 23.01% return.

GRN

• 1D: -0.42%
• 1M: 8.55%
• YTD: -8.60%
• 6M: -4.48%
• 1Y: 9.03%
• 3Y*: 0.39%
• 5Y*: 9.52%
• 10Y*: —

CMCI

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: -0.41%
• YTD: 23.01%
• 6M: 23.83%
• 1Y: 30.85%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GRN vs. CMCI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN	-8.60%	20.33%	-7.34%	-11.90%
CMCI VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF	23.01%	7.90%	5.68%	-2.87%

Correlation

The correlation between GRN and CMCI is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 24, 2023	0.06

Return for Risk

GRN vs. CMCI — Risk / Return Rank

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

GRN

GRN Risk / Return Rank: 13
GRN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
GRN Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
GRN Omega Ratio Rank: 14
GRN Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
GRN Martin Ratio Rank: 13

CMCI

CMCI Risk / Return Rank: 81
CMCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
CMCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
CMCI Omega Ratio Rank: 77
CMCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
CMCI Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

GRN vs. CMCI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) and VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI). 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.

	GRN	CMCI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.33	2.54	-2.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.61	3.42	-2.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.46	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.30	6.16	-5.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.77	16.15	-15.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GRN vs. CMCI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRN Sharpe Ratio is 0.33, which is lower than the CMCI Sharpe Ratio of 2.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GRN and CMCI, 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

	GRN	CMCI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33	2.54	-2.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.24	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.42	0.94	-0.52

Drawdowns

GRN vs. CMCI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRN drawdown since its inception was -47.96%, which is greater than CMCI's maximum drawdown of -11.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRN and CMCI.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRN	CMCI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.96%	-11.54%	-36.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.39%	-5.03%	-25.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.30%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.73%	-3.12%	-16.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.54%	-3.54%	-14.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.83%	1.92%	+9.91%

Volatility

GRN vs. CMCI - Volatility Comparison

iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) has a higher volatility of 6.65% compared to VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF (CMCI) at 4.25%. This indicates that GRN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMCI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GRN	CMCI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.65%	4.25%	+2.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.47%	10.14%	+14.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.74%	12.19%	+15.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.82%	12.63%	+27.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	41.95%	12.63%	+29.32%

GRN vs. CMCI - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRN has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CMCI's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRN vs. CMCI - Dividend Comparison

GRN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CMCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.04%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMCI VanEck CMCI Commodity Strategy ETF	8.04%	9.89%	3.93%	1.64%
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRN and CMCI in my portfolio?

GRN and CMCI have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GRN or CMCI?

GRN has higher volatility (6.65%) compared to CMCI (4.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRN dropped -47.96% vs CMCI's -11.54%.

Which ETF is better, GRN or CMCI?

On 1-year performance, CMCI leads with 30.85% vs 9.03% for GRN. On fees, CMCI is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, CMCI has been the lower-risk option at 4.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GRN or CMCI?

Over the 1-year period, CMCI has performed better with a 30.85% return vs 9.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRN or CMCI?

CMCI is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for GRN.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GRN or CMCI?

CMCI has the higher dividend yield at 8.04%, compared with 0.00% for GRN.

What is the main difference between GRN and CMCI?

GRN tracks Barclays Global Carbon II Index, while CMCI tracks UBS Bloomberg CMCI Composite Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: Barclays Capital and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRN and 0.65% for CMCI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CMCI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.54 vs 0.33), 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.