LTPZ vs. CMDT
LTPZ (PIMCO 15+ Year U.S. TIPS Index ETF) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LTPZ is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE BofA US Inflation-Linked Treasury (15+ Y), while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LTPZ returned -1.08%/yr vs 11.80%/yr for CMDT. Their -0.07 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. LTPZ charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.
Performance
LTPZ vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LTPZ achieves a -3.35% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 18.51% return.
LTPZ
- 1D
- 0.42%
- 1M
- -3.33%
- 6M
- -2.92%
- YTD
- -3.35%
- 1Y
- -2.09%
- 3Y*
- -1.08%
- 5Y*
- -7.35%
- 10Y*
- -0.17%
- ALL TIME*
- 2.81%
CMDT
- 1D
- -0.74%
- 1M
- 6.05%
- 6M
- 15.17%
- YTD
- 18.51%
- 1Y
- 27.48%
- 3Y*
- 11.80%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 13.50%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.96M | $1.73M | $2.38M | |
| $12.67M | $8.82M | $7.84M |
LTPZ vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
LTPZ PIMCO 15+ Year U.S. TIPS Index ETF | -3.35% | 4.00% | -4.80% | -2.66% |
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund | 18.51% | 12.78% | 6.93% | 5.37% |
Correlation
The correlation between LTPZ and CMDT is -0.20, 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. | -0.20 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2023 | -0.07 |
The correlation between LTPZ and CMDT shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to -0.07 (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
LTPZ vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank
LTPZ
CMDT
LTPZ vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO 15+ Year U.S. TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) 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.
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.
| LTPZ | CMDT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.34 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.97 | 1.36 | -0.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.26 | 2.09 | -2.35 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.54 | 7.34 | -7.87 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LTPZ vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LTPZ drawdown since its inception was -40.99%, which is greater than CMDT's maximum drawdown of -13.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LTPZ and CMDT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LTPZ | CMDT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -40.99% | -13.23% | -27.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.09% | -13.23% | +5.14% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -12.64% | -13.23% | +0.59% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -40.99% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -40.99% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -35.26% | -7.13% | -28.13% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.61% | -2.98% | -9.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.89% | 3.76% | +0.13% |
Volatility
LTPZ vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for PIMCO 15+ Year U.S. TIPS Index ETF (LTPZ) is 2.08%, while PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) has a volatility of 4.11%. This indicates that LTPZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LTPZ | CMDT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.08% | 4.11% | -2.03% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.77% | 11.14% | -4.37% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.01% | 13.12% | -4.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.86% | 12.36% | +3.50% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.02% | 12.36% | +2.66% |
LTPZ vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison
LTPZ has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
LTPZ vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison
LTPZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.00%, more than CMDT's 2.60% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund | 2.60% | 3.04% | 8.80% | 2.71% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LTPZ PIMCO 15+ Year U.S. TIPS Index ETF | 7.00% | 4.64% | 3.71% | 3.71% | 8.38% | 3.56% | 1.42% | 1.74% | 3.05% | 2.25% | 2.32% | 0.71% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LTPZ and CMDT have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CMDT has higher volatility (4.11%) compared to LTPZ (2.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LTPZ dropped -40.99% vs CMDT's -13.23%.
On 3-year performance, CMDT leads with 11.80% vs -1.08% for LTPZ. On fees, LTPZ is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, LTPZ has been the lower-risk option at 2.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 11.80% return vs -1.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
LTPZ is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CMDT.
LTPZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.00%, compared with 2.60% for CMDT.
LTPZ is categorized as Inflation-Protected Bonds, while CMDT is Commodities. LTPZ tracks ICE BofA US Inflation-Linked Treasury (15+ Y), while CMDT tracks Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for LTPZ and 0.65% for CMDT.
CMDT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs -0.23), 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 LTPZ and CMDT
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