HAP vs. COST

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

HAP (VanEck Natural Resources ETF) is Energy Equities fund tracking the MarketVector Global Natural Resources Index, while COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation) is a stock. Over the past 10 years, HAP returned 11.95%/yr vs 22.27%/yr for COST. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

HAP vs. COST - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HAP achieves a 18.44% return, which is significantly higher than COST's 14.24% return. Over the past 10 years, HAP has underperformed COST with an annualized return of 11.95%, while COST has yielded a comparatively higher 22.27% annualized return.

HAP

• 1D: 1.21%
• 1M: -4.04%
• YTD: 18.44%
• 6M: 19.25%
• 1Y: 38.39%
• 3Y*: 17.05%
• 5Y*: 11.22%
• 10Y*: 11.95%

COST

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: -6.35%
• YTD: 14.24%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: -0.24%
• 3Y*: 25.12%
• 5Y*: 22.12%
• 10Y*: 22.27%

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

HAP vs. COST - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	18.44%	34.91%	-4.08%	2.46%	7.84%	25.04%	6.30%	18.60%	-10.68%	17.12%
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	14.24%	-5.39%	39.62%	49.00%	-19.05%	51.82%	32.67%	45.70%	10.60%	22.37%

Correlation

The correlation between HAP and COST is -0.05, 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	-0.05
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.12
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.22
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 3, 2008	0.33

The correlation between HAP and COST shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.33 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

HAP vs. COST — Risk / Return Rank

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

HAP

HAP Risk / Return Rank: 87
HAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
HAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
HAP Omega Ratio Rank: 86
HAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
HAP Martin Ratio Rank: 90

COST

COST Risk / Return Rank: 37
COST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
COST Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
COST Omega Ratio Rank: 32
COST Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
COST Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

HAP vs. COST - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST). 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.

	HAP	COST	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.54	-0.08	+2.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.27	0.02	+3.25
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.00	+0.45
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.74	-0.10	+4.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.71	-0.22	+17.93

HAP vs. COST - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HAP Sharpe Ratio is 2.54, which is higher than the COST Sharpe Ratio of -0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HAP and COST, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

HAP vs. COST - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HAP drawdown since its inception was -50.99%, roughly equal to the maximum COST drawdown of -53.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HAP and COST.

Drawdown Indicators

	HAP	COST	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.99%	-53.39%	+2.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.31%	-15.14%	+6.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.92%	-20.74%	+3.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.66%	-31.40%	+5.74%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.07%	-31.40%	-12.67%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.42%	-10.23%	+5.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.07%	-13.36%	+1.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.22%	6.67%	-4.45%

Volatility

HAP vs. COST - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Natural Resources ETF (HAP) is 5.20%, while Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) has a volatility of 7.44%. This indicates that HAP experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COST based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HAP	COST	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.20%	7.44%	-2.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.86%	14.53%	-1.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.50%	18.80%	-3.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.32%	22.72%	-4.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.75%	21.95%	-2.20%

Dividends

HAP vs. COST - Dividend Comparison

HAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.91%, more than COST's 0.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	0.55%	0.59%	0.49%	2.87%	0.76%	0.54%	3.38%	0.86%	1.08%	4.81%	1.09%	4.06%
HAP VanEck Natural Resources ETF	1.91%	2.27%	2.65%	3.27%	3.28%	2.16%	2.45%	2.80%	2.85%	2.02%	1.99%	3.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HAP and COST in my portfolio?

HAP and COST have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HAP or COST?

COST has higher volatility (7.44%) compared to HAP (5.20%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HAP dropped -50.99% vs COST's -53.39%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HAP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.54 vs -0.08), 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.