NANR vs. CCNR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

NANR (SPDR S&P North American Natural Resources ETF) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both Commodity Producers Equities funds. NANR is passively managed, while CCNR is actively managed. Over the past year, NANR returned 54.85% vs 69.09% for CCNR. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NANR charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

NANR vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR S&P North American Natural Resources ETF (NANR) 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, NANR achieves a 24.36% return, which is significantly lower than CCNR's 27.07% return.

NANR

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 1.75%
• YTD: 24.36%
• 6M: 26.46%
• 1Y: 54.85%
• 3Y*: 21.11%
• 5Y*: 16.27%
• 10Y*: 12.38%

CCNR

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.24%
• YTD: 27.07%
• 6M: 29.27%
• 1Y: 69.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NANR vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NANR SPDR S&P North American Natural Resources ETF	24.36%	35.35%	-7.88%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	27.07%	46.48%	-8.12%

Correlation

The correlation between NANR and CCNR is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2024	0.86

The correlation between NANR and CCNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

NANR vs. CCNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NANR	CCNR
Basic Materials	47.1%	31.6%
Energy	41.1%	38.0%
Consumer Cyclical	5.9%	1.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.4%	8.5%
Real Estate	0.4%	0.5%
Technology	0.1%	4.3%
Industrials	0.0%	7.5%
Utilities	0.0%	8.5%
Communication Services	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	-

Return for Risk

NANR vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NANR

NANR Risk / Return Rank: 88
NANR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
NANR Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
NANR Omega Ratio Rank: 84
NANR Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
NANR Martin Ratio Rank: 91

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 95
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 93
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

NANR vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR S&P North American Natural Resources ETF (NANR) 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.

	NANR	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.04	3.92	-0.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.78	4.75	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.65	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.17	10.73	-4.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	21.74	34.92	-13.18
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NANR vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NANR Sharpe Ratio is 3.04, which is comparable to the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 3.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NANR 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	NANR	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.04	3.92	-0.88
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.63	1.66	-1.03

Drawdowns

NANR vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NANR drawdown since its inception was -49.15%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NANR and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NANR	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.15%	-20.06%	-29.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.93%	-6.47%	-2.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.42%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.42%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-49.15%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.12%	-1.21%	-0.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.40%	-3.56%	-4.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.53%	1.98%	+0.55%

Volatility

NANR vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

SPDR S&P North American Natural Resources ETF (NANR) has a higher volatility of 4.86% compared to ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) at 4.18%. This indicates that NANR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CCNR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NANR	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.86%	4.18%	+0.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.31%	12.76%	+1.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.13%	17.72%	+0.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.88%	19.83%	+3.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.53%	19.83%	+3.70%

NANR vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NANR has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

NANR vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

NANR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.69%, less than CCNR's 2.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.74%	3.48%	1.27%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
NANR SPDR S&P North American Natural Resources ETF	1.69%	1.77%	2.20%	2.78%	2.70%	2.61%	2.73%	2.02%	1.95%	1.83%	5.01%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NANR and CCNR in my portfolio?

NANR and CCNR have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NANR or CCNR?

NANR has higher volatility (4.86%) compared to CCNR (4.18%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NANR dropped -49.15% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, NANR or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 69.09% vs 54.85% for NANR. On fees, NANR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CCNR has been the lower-risk option at 4.18%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NANR or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 69.09% return vs 54.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NANR or CCNR?

NANR is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for CCNR.

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

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.74%, compared with 1.69% for NANR.

What is the main difference between NANR and CCNR?

They also come from different issuers: State Street and ALPS. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for NANR and 0.39% for CCNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.92 vs 3.04), 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.