GRN vs. CMDT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GRN (iPath Series B Carbon ETN) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both Commodities funds - GRN tracks the Barclays Global Carbon II Index while CMDT tracks the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GRN returned 0.39%/yr vs 16.90%/yr for CMDT. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GRN charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.

Performance

GRN vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). 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 CMDT's 23.96% return.

GRN

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

CMDT

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: -0.63%
• YTD: 23.96%
• 6M: 24.09%
• 1Y: 35.85%
• 3Y*: 16.90%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GRN vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN	-8.60%	20.33%	-7.34%	-11.86%
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	23.96%	12.78%	6.93%	5.50%

Correlation

The correlation between GRN and CMDT 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	0.05

Return for Risk

GRN vs. CMDT — 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

CMDT

CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 88
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). 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	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.33	2.92	-2.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.61	3.92	-3.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.50	-0.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.30	8.03	-7.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.77	22.12	-21.35
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. CMDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRN Sharpe Ratio is 0.33, which is lower than the CMDT Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GRN and CMDT, 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	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.33	2.92	-2.59
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	1.32	-0.91

Drawdowns

GRN vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRN drawdown since its inception was -47.96%, which is greater than CMDT's maximum drawdown of -9.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRN and CMDT.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRN	CMDT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.96%	-9.69%	-38.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-30.39%	-4.49%	-25.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-45.30%	-9.69%	-35.61%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-47.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.73%	-2.86%	-16.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.54%	-2.69%	-14.85%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.83%	1.63%	+10.20%

Volatility

GRN vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison

iPath Series B Carbon ETN (GRN) has a higher volatility of 6.65% compared to PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) at 4.33%. This indicates that GRN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GRN	CMDT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.65%	4.33%	+2.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.47%	10.30%	+14.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.74%	12.35%	+15.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.82%	12.21%	+27.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	41.95%	12.21%	+29.74%

GRN vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GRN vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison

GRN has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CMDT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.44%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.44%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%
GRN iPath Series B Carbon ETN	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRN and CMDT in my portfolio?

GRN and CMDT 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 CMDT?

GRN has higher volatility (6.65%) compared to CMDT (4.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRN dropped -47.96% vs CMDT's -9.69%.

Which ETF is better, GRN or CMDT?

On 3-year performance, CMDT leads with 16.90% vs 0.39% for GRN. On fees, CMDT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, CMDT has been the lower-risk option at 4.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GRN or CMDT?

Over the 3-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 16.90% return vs 0.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRN or CMDT?

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

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

CMDT has the higher dividend yield at 2.44%, compared with 0.00% for GRN.

What is the main difference between GRN and CMDT?

GRN tracks Barclays Global Carbon II Index, while CMDT tracks Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: Barclays Capital and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for GRN and 0.65% for CMDT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CMDT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.92 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.