MART vs. CMDT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

MART (Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - MART is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Allianz, while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. MART is actively managed, while CMDT is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MART returned 15.49%/yr vs 12.77%/yr for CMDT. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MART charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.

Performance

MART vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) 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, MART achieves a 7.12% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 13.43% return.

MART

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: -0.26%
• YTD: 7.12%
• 6M: 7.01%
• 1Y: 17.70%
• 3Y*: 15.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CMDT

• 1D: -1.14%
• 1M: -8.86%
• YTD: 13.43%
• 6M: 13.42%
• 1Y: 21.34%
• 3Y*: 12.77%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MART vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
MART Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF	7.12%	14.93%	15.60%	12.80%
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	13.43%	12.78%	6.93%	5.37%

Correlation

The correlation between MART and CMDT is -0.04, 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	-0.04
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2023	0.07

The correlation between MART and CMDT shifts across timeframes, from -0.04 (1 year) to 0.07 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

MART vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank

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

MART

MART Risk / Return Rank: 84
MART Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
MART Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
MART Omega Ratio Rank: 88
MART Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
MART Martin Ratio Rank: 89

CMDT

CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 50
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 48
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

MART vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) 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.

	MART	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.47	1.71	+0.76
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.59	2.39	+1.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.29	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.35	1.93	+1.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.30	9.62	+8.68

MART vs. CMDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MART Sharpe Ratio is 2.47, which is higher than the CMDT Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MART 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.

Drawdowns

MART vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MART drawdown since its inception was -11.61%, roughly equal to the maximum CMDT drawdown of -11.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MART and CMDT.

Drawdown Indicators

	MART	CMDT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.61%	-11.11%	-0.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.30%	-11.11%	+5.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.61%	-11.11%	-0.50%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.31%	-11.11%	+9.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.90%	-2.77%	+1.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.97%	2.25%	-1.28%

Volatility

MART vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF (MART) is 2.35%, while PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) has a volatility of 3.26%. This indicates that MART 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.

Volatility by Period

	MART	CMDT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.35%	3.26%	-0.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.97%	10.60%	-4.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.24%	12.65%	-5.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.69%	12.24%	-2.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.69%	12.24%	-2.55%

MART vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

MART has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is higher than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

MART vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison

MART has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CMDT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.67%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.67%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%
MART Allianzim U.S. Large Cap Buffer10 Mar ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MART and CMDT in my portfolio?

MART and CMDT have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MART or CMDT?

CMDT has higher volatility (3.26%) compared to MART (2.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MART dropped -11.61% vs CMDT's -11.11%.

Which ETF is better, MART or CMDT?

On 3-year performance, MART leads with 15.49% vs 12.77% for CMDT. On fees, CMDT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, MART has been the lower-risk option at 2.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MART or CMDT?

Over the 3-year period, MART has performed better with a 15.49% return vs 12.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MART or CMDT?

CMDT is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.74% for MART.

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

CMDT has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 0.00% for MART.

What is the main difference between MART and CMDT?

MART is categorized as Options Trading, while CMDT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Allianz and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for MART and 0.65% for CMDT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MART currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.47 vs 1.71), 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.