MOO vs. CCNR

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

MOO (VanEck Agribusiness ETF) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both Natural Resources funds. MOO is passively managed, while CCNR is actively managed. Over the past year, MOO returned 12.19% vs 41.99% for CCNR. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MOO charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

MOO vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) 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, MOO achieves a 11.94% return, which is significantly lower than CCNR's 14.13% return.

MOO

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: 3.68%
• 6M: 8.42%
• YTD: 11.94%
• 1Y: 12.19%
• 3Y*: 2.07%
• 5Y*: 0.16%
• 10Y*: 7.23%

CCNR

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: -6.38%
• 6M: 6.27%
• YTD: 14.13%
• 1Y: 41.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MOO vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF	11.94%	15.61%	-3.52%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	14.13%	46.48%	-7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between MOO and CCNR is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.69

The correlation between MOO and CCNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

MOO vs. CCNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MOO	CCNR
Consumer Defensive	37.8%	8.3%
Basic Materials	25.2%	34.5%
Industrials	21.7%	7.1%
Healthcare	15.3%	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.3%
Energy	-	34.5%
Financial Services	-	0.6%
Real Estate	-	0.5%
Technology	-	6.0%
Utilities	-	9.4%

Return for Risk

MOO vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

MOO

MOO Risk / Return Rank: 28
MOO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
MOO Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
MOO Omega Ratio Rank: 27
MOO Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
MOO Martin Ratio Rank: 26

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 82
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

MOO vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) 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.

	MOO	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.85	2.27	-1.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.32	2.86	-1.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.39	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.10	3.28	-2.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.84	11.61	-8.77

MOO vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MOO Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is lower than the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MOO 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

MOO vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MOO drawdown since its inception was -69.53%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MOO and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MOO	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.53%	-20.06%	-49.47%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.17%	-12.88%	+1.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.83%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.52%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.52%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-16.12%	-11.26%	-4.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.98%	-3.84%	-13.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.31%	3.64%	+0.67%

Volatility

MOO vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) is 4.33%, while ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) has a volatility of 5.11%. This indicates that MOO 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

	MOO	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.33%	5.11%	-0.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.10%	13.80%	-2.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.39%	18.62%	-4.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.18%	20.03%	-2.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.13%	20.03%	-1.90%

MOO vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MOO has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is higher than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

MOO vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

MOO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.21%, less than CCNR's 3.05% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	3.05%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF	2.21%	2.47%	3.41%	2.93%	2.15%	1.17%	1.10%	1.26%	1.69%	1.44%	2.14%	2.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MOO and CCNR in my portfolio?

MOO and CCNR have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MOO or CCNR?

CCNR has higher volatility (5.11%) compared to MOO (4.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MOO dropped -69.53% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, MOO or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 41.99% vs 12.19% for MOO. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, MOO has been the lower-risk option at 4.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MOO or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 41.99% return vs 12.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MOO or CCNR?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for MOO.

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

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 3.05%, compared with 2.21% for MOO.

What is the main difference between MOO and CCNR?

They also come from different issuers: VanEck and ALPS. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for MOO and 0.39% for CCNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 0.85), 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.