MOO vs. GNR

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

MOO (VanEck Agribusiness ETF) and GNR (SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF) are both Natural Resources funds - MOO tracks the MVIS Global Agribusiness Index while GNR tracks the S&P Global Natural Resources Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, MOO returned 7.40%/yr vs 10.27%/yr for GNR. Their correlation of 0.82 means they have usually moved in the same direction. MOO charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GNR.

Performance

MOO vs. GNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) and SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MOO achieves a 12.27% return, which is significantly lower than GNR's 17.86% return. Over the past 10 years, MOO has underperformed GNR with an annualized return of 7.40%, while GNR has yielded a comparatively higher 10.27% annualized return.

MOO

• 1D: -2.16%
• 1M: 1.00%
• 6M: 1.76%
• YTD: 12.27%
• 1Y: 16.07%
• 3Y*: 0.90%
• 5Y*: 0.10%
• 10Y*: 7.40%
• ALL TIME*: 5.50%

GNR

• 1D: -1.07%
• 1M: 6.50%
• 6M: 7.47%
• YTD: 17.86%
• 1Y: 37.18%
• 3Y*: 11.94%
• 5Y*: 10.54%
• 10Y*: 10.27%
• ALL TIME*: 5.46%

*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)
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	$12.18M	$15.84M	$18.04M
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF	$14.26M	$13.98M	$22.17M

MOO vs. GNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF	12.27%	15.61%	-12.43%	-8.57%	-8.10%	23.99%	14.59%	22.29%	-6.03%	21.75%
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	17.86%	28.68%	-8.27%	2.95%	10.20%	24.73%	-0.03%	16.49%	-13.19%	22.64%

Correlation

The correlation between MOO and GNR is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.79
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 14, 2010	0.82

The correlation between MOO and GNR shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (1 year) to 0.82 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MOO vs. GNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MOO	GNR
Consumer Defensive	33.4%	5.4%
Basic Materials	26.1%	53.5%
Industrials	23.7%	0.3%
Healthcare	16.8%	0.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	8.5%
Energy	-	31.3%
Financial Services	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	1.0%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	0.0%

Return for Risk

MOO vs. GNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

MOO

MOO Risk / Return Rank: 41
MOO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
MOO Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
MOO Omega Ratio Rank: 42
MOO Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
MOO Martin Ratio Rank: 36

GNR

GNR Risk / Return Rank: 85
GNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
GNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
GNR Omega Ratio Rank: 86
GNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
GNR Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

MOO vs. GNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) and SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR). 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	GNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.09	2.14	-1.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.63	2.75	-1.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.38	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.40	3.33	-1.93
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.60	10.62	-7.03

MOO vs. GNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MOO Sharpe Ratio is 1.09, which is lower than the GNR Sharpe Ratio of 2.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MOO and GNR, 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. GNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MOO drawdown since its inception was -69.53%, which is greater than GNR's maximum drawdown of -51.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MOO and GNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MOO	GNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-69.53%	-51.37%	-18.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.17%	-10.99%	-0.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.85%	-21.15%	-4.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.52%	-25.66%	-13.86%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.52%	-48.59%	+9.07%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.87%	-3.48%	-12.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.97%	-14.87%	-2.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.33%	3.44%	+0.89%

Volatility

MOO vs. GNR - Volatility Comparison

VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) and SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) have volatilities of 4.28% and 4.33%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MOO	GNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.28%	4.33%	-0.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.00%	14.05%	-3.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.29%	17.13%	-2.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.18%	20.19%	-3.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.14%	21.77%	-3.63%

MOO vs. GNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MOO has a 0.56% expense ratio, which is higher than GNR's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

MOO vs. GNR - Dividend Comparison

MOO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.20%, less than GNR's 2.52% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF	2.52%	2.76%	4.73%	3.37%	4.37%	3.44%	2.78%	3.84%	3.51%	2.40%	2.06%	4.59%
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF	2.20%	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 GNR in my portfolio?

MOO and GNR have a correlation of 0.67, 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 GNR?

GNR has higher volatility (4.33%) compared to MOO (4.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MOO dropped -69.53% vs GNR's -51.37%.

Which ETF is better, MOO or GNR?

On 10-year performance, GNR leads with 10.27% vs 7.40% for MOO. On fees, GNR is cheaper at 0.40% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MOO or GNR?

Over the 10-year period, GNR has performed better with a 10.27% return vs 7.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MOO or GNR?

GNR is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for MOO.

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

GNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.52%, compared with 2.20% for MOO.

What is the main difference between MOO and GNR?

MOO tracks MVIS Global Agribusiness Index, while GNR tracks S&P Global Natural Resources Index. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.56% for MOO and 0.40% for GNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.14 vs 1.09), 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.