MNBD vs. CCNR

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

MNBD (ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MNBD is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by ALPS, while CCNR is a Natural Resources fund actively managed by ALPS. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MNBD returned 3.93% vs 50.28% for CCNR. Their 0.08 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. MNBD charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

MNBD vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF (MNBD) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MNBD achieves a 0.65% return, which is significantly lower than CCNR's 16.37% return.

MNBD

• 1D: 0.19%
• 1M: -1.28%
• 6M: -0.33%
• YTD: 0.65%
• 1Y: 3.93%
• 3Y*: 4.00%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.16%

CCNR

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 2.70%
• 6M: 2.27%
• YTD: 16.37%
• 1Y: 50.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 24.52%

*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)
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	$256.37K	$2.34M	$1.27M
MNBD ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF	$162.80K	$123.01K	$162.44K

MNBD vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MNBD ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF	0.65%	5.15%	1.43%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	16.37%	46.48%	-7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between MNBD and CCNR is 0.10, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.08

Return for Risk

MNBD vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

MNBD

MNBD Risk / Return Rank: 54
MNBD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
MNBD Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
MNBD Omega Ratio Rank: 66
MNBD Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
MNBD Martin Ratio Rank: 42

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 90
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 92
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

MNBD vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF (MNBD) and ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR). 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.

	MNBD	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	2.72	-1.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	3.34	-1.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.46	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.66	3.92	-2.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.85	11.72	-6.87

MNBD vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MNBD Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is lower than the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 2.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MNBD and CCNR, 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

MNBD vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MNBD drawdown since its inception was -5.89%, smaller than the maximum CCNR drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MNBD and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MNBD	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.89%	-20.06%	+14.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.38%	-12.88%	+10.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.22%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.58%	-9.53%	+7.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.08%	-4.02%	+2.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.81%	4.30%	-3.49%

Volatility

MNBD vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF (MNBD) is 0.87%, while ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) has a volatility of 4.61%. This indicates that MNBD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CCNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MNBD	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.87%	4.61%	-3.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.97%	13.49%	-11.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.57%	18.61%	-16.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.74%	19.96%	-16.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.74%	19.96%	-16.22%

MNBD vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MNBD has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

MNBD vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

MNBD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.36%, more than CCNR's 2.99% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.99%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%
MNBD ALPS Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF	3.36%	3.32%	3.83%	3.44%	2.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MNBD and CCNR in my portfolio?

MNBD and CCNR have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MNBD or CCNR?

CCNR has higher volatility (4.61%) compared to MNBD (0.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MNBD dropped -5.89% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, MNBD or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 50.28% vs 3.93% for MNBD. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, MNBD has been the lower-risk option at 0.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MNBD or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 50.28% return vs 3.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MNBD or CCNR?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for MNBD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MNBD or CCNR?

MNBD has the higher dividend yield at 3.36%, compared with 2.99% for CCNR.

What is the main difference between MNBD and CCNR?

MNBD is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while CCNR is Natural Resources. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for MNBD and 0.39% for CCNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.72 vs 1.54), 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.