MOO vs. GNR
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 7.23%/yr vs 9.43%/yr for GNR. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MOO charges 0.56%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for GNR.
Performance
MOO vs. GNR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with MOO having a 11.94% return and GNR slightly higher at 12.16%. Over the past 10 years, MOO has underperformed GNR with an annualized return of 7.23%, while GNR has yielded a comparatively higher 9.43% annualized 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%
GNR
- 1D
- 0.64%
- 1M
- -4.41%
- 6M
- 7.47%
- YTD
- 12.16%
- 1Y
- 25.41%
- 3Y*
- 11.05%
- 5Y*
- 9.46%
- 10Y*
- 9.43%
MOO vs. GNR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF | 11.94% | 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 | 12.16% | 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 0.70, 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 | 0.70 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.75 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.79 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 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 0.70 (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
Basic Materials
Industrials
Healthcare
Communication Services
-
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Energy
-
Financial Services
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
-
Utilities
-
Consumer Defensive
MOO
GNR
Basic Materials
MOO
GNR
Industrials
MOO
GNR
Healthcare
MOO
GNR
Communication Services
MOO
-
GNR
-
Consumer Cyclical
MOO
-
GNR
Energy
MOO
-
GNR
Financial Services
MOO
-
GNR
Real Estate
MOO
-
GNR
Technology
MOO
-
GNR
-
Utilities
MOO
-
GNR
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MOO vs. GNR — Risk / Return Rank
MOO
GNR
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 ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.64 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.67 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.27 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.10 | 2.32 | -1.23 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.84 | 7.82 | -4.99 |
Loading charts...
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MOO | GNR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 | -26.83% | -21.15% | -5.68% |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -16.12% | -8.15% | -7.97% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.98% | -14.90% | -2.08% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.31% | 3.27% | +1.04% |
Volatility
MOO vs. GNR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) is 4.33%, while SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR) has a volatility of 5.03%. This indicates that MOO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MOO | GNR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.33% | 5.03% | -0.70% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 11.10% | 14.04% | -2.94% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.39% | 17.16% | -2.77% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.18% | 20.25% | -3.07% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.13% | 21.76% | -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 2.21%, less than GNR's 2.65% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GNR SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF | 2.65% | 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 | 2.21% | 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
MOO and GNR have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GNR has higher volatility (5.03%) compared to MOO (4.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MOO dropped -69.53% vs GNR's -51.37%.
On 10-year performance, GNR leads with 9.43% vs 7.23% for MOO. On fees, GNR is cheaper at 0.40% 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.
Over the 10-year period, GNR has performed better with a 9.43% return vs 7.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
GNR is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for MOO.
GNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.65%, compared with 2.21% for MOO.
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.
GNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.49 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.
Find the right allocation for MOO and GNR
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer