MJ vs. CNBS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MJ (Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF) and CNBS (Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MJ is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Prime Alternative Harvest Index, while CNBS is a Cannabis fund actively managed by Amplify. MJ is passively managed, while CNBS is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, MJ returned -34.66%/yr vs -33.11%/yr for CNBS. Their correlation of 0.89 means they have usually moved in the same direction. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

MJ vs. CNBS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ) and Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF (CNBS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MJ achieves a -22.96% return, which is significantly lower than CNBS's -12.28% return.

MJ

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: -10.56%
• 6M: -11.97%
• YTD: -22.96%
• 1Y: 10.13%
• 3Y*: -12.93%
• 5Y*: -34.66%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -27.77%

CNBS

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: -13.53%
• 6M: 0.51%
• YTD: -12.28%
• 1Y: 32.27%
• 3Y*: -8.99%
• 5Y*: -33.11%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: -25.62%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CNBS Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF	$114.17K	$102.50K	$278.36K
MJ Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF	$537.45K	$719.41K	$986.99K

MJ vs. CNBS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
MJ Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF	-22.96%	13.07%	-23.97%	-24.18%	-61.55%	-22.79%	-16.18%	-41.93%
CNBS Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF	-12.28%	15.33%	-29.41%	-16.11%	-63.98%	-19.02%	31.94%	-45.72%

Correlation

The correlation between MJ and CNBS is 0.91, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.91
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.89
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2019	0.89

The correlation between MJ and CNBS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

MJ vs. CNBS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MJ	CNBS
Healthcare	76.4%	63.1%
Consumer Defensive	18.3%	7.0%
Real Estate	3.3%	13.8%
Consumer Cyclical	0.9%	3.4%
Technology	0.6%	10.7%
Financial Services	0.3%	1.9%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Energy	-	-
Industrials	-	0.1%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

MJ vs. CNBS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

MJ

MJ Risk / Return Rank: 19
MJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
MJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
MJ Omega Ratio Rank: 25
MJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
MJ Martin Ratio Rank: 14

CNBS

CNBS Risk / Return Rank: 28
CNBS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
CNBS Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
CNBS Omega Ratio Rank: 36
CNBS Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
CNBS Martin Ratio Rank: 20

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

MJ vs. CNBS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ) and Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF (CNBS). 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.

	MJ	CNBS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.15	0.39	-0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.01	1.46	-0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.17	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.26	0.79	-0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.40	1.33	-0.93

MJ vs. CNBS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MJ Sharpe Ratio is 0.15, which is lower than the CNBS Sharpe Ratio of 0.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MJ and CNBS, 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

MJ vs. CNBS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MJ drawdown since its inception was -96.55%, roughly equal to the maximum CNBS drawdown of -95.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MJ and CNBS.

Drawdown Indicators

	MJ	CNBS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-96.55%	-95.71%	-0.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-48.66%	-51.25%	+2.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-69.73%	-73.41%	+3.68%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-91.79%	-92.63%	+0.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-95.03%	-92.36%	-2.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-69.67%	-71.69%	+2.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	31.44%	30.52%	+0.92%

Volatility

MJ vs. CNBS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ) is 10.28%, while Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF (CNBS) has a volatility of 12.37%. This indicates that MJ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNBS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MJ	CNBS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.28%	12.37%	-2.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	39.32%	52.33%	-13.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	86.01%	104.84%	-18.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	59.96%	65.17%	-5.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	55.45%	61.12%	-5.67%

MJ vs. CNBS - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both MJ and CNBS have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

MJ vs. CNBS - Dividend Comparison

MJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.58%, while CNBS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CNBS Amplify Seymour Cannabis ETF	0.00%	0.00%	43.54%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.58%	0.58%
MJ Amplify Alternative Harvest ETF	2.58%	1.98%	13.80%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MJ and CNBS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, MJ and CNBS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, MJ or CNBS?

CNBS has higher volatility (12.37%) compared to MJ (10.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MJ dropped -96.55% vs CNBS's -95.71%.

Which ETF is better, MJ or CNBS?

On 5-year performance, CNBS leads with -33.11% vs -34.66% for MJ. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. On volatility, MJ has been the lower-risk option at 10.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MJ or CNBS?

Over the 5-year period, CNBS has performed better with a -33.11% return vs -34.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MJ or CNBS?

MJ and CNBS have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MJ or CNBS?

MJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.58%, compared with 0.00% for CNBS.

What is the main difference between MJ and CNBS?

MJ is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while CNBS is Cannabis.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CNBS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.39 vs 0.15), 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.