NBTR vs. COMT

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

NBTR (Neuberger Total Return Bond ETF) and COMT (iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NBTR is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by Neuberger, while COMT is a Commodities fund tracking the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. NBTR is actively managed, while COMT is passively managed. Over the past year, NBTR returned 5.11% vs 25.37% for COMT. At a correlation of -0.27, they often move in opposite directions. NBTR charges 0.37%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for COMT.

Performance

NBTR vs. COMT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Neuberger Total Return Bond ETF (NBTR) and iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBTR achieves a 0.98% return, which is significantly lower than COMT's 20.95% return.

NBTR

• 1D: 0.32%
• 1M: 1.01%
• YTD: 0.98%
• 6M: 0.89%
• 1Y: 5.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

COMT

• 1D: -2.37%
• 1M: -14.00%
• YTD: 20.95%
• 6M: 19.91%
• 1Y: 25.37%
• 3Y*: 11.11%
• 5Y*: 10.23%
• 10Y*: 7.70%

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

NBTR vs. COMT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NBTR Neuberger Total Return Bond ETF	0.98%	8.07%	-0.93%
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF	20.95%	6.07%	1.48%

Correlation

The correlation between NBTR and COMT is -0.36, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 18, 2024	-0.27

Return for Risk

NBTR vs. COMT — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBTR

NBTR Risk / Return Rank: 47
NBTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
NBTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
NBTR Omega Ratio Rank: 46
NBTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
NBTR Martin Ratio Rank: 42

COMT

COMT Risk / Return Rank: 37
COMT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
COMT Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
COMT Omega Ratio Rank: 36
COMT Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
COMT Martin Ratio Rank: 45

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.

NBTR vs. COMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Total Return Bond ETF (NBTR) and iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT). 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.

	NBTR	COMT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	1.21	+0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	1.72	+0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.22	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.02	1.45	+0.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.06	6.71	-0.65

NBTR vs. COMT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBTR Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is comparable to the COMT Sharpe Ratio of 1.21. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBTR and COMT, 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

NBTR vs. COMT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBTR drawdown since its inception was -2.58%, smaller than the maximum COMT drawdown of -51.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBTR and COMT.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBTR	COMT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.58%	-51.89%	+49.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.54%	-17.57%	+15.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-17.57%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.00%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.22%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.67%	-17.57%	+16.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.64%	-24.00%	+23.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.85%	3.79%	-2.94%

Volatility

NBTR vs. COMT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Neuberger Total Return Bond ETF (NBTR) is 0.88%, while iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT) has a volatility of 5.32%. This indicates that NBTR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBTR	COMT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.88%	5.32%	-4.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.64%	19.40%	-16.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.50%	21.28%	-17.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.10%	21.15%	-17.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.10%	18.87%	-14.77%

NBTR vs. COMT - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBTR has a 0.37% expense ratio, which is lower than COMT's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBTR vs. COMT - Dividend Comparison

NBTR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.55%, less than COMT's 6.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF	6.40%	7.74%	4.90%	5.19%	29.79%	17.79%	0.36%	2.61%	11.65%	5.16%	0.52%	1.44%
NBTR Neuberger Total Return Bond ETF	5.55%	5.76%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBTR and COMT in my portfolio?

NBTR and COMT have a correlation of -0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBTR or COMT?

COMT has higher volatility (5.32%) compared to NBTR (0.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBTR dropped -2.58% vs COMT's -51.89%.

Which ETF is better, NBTR or COMT?

On 1-year performance, COMT leads with 25.37% vs 5.11% for NBTR. On fees, NBTR is cheaper at 0.37% per year. On volatility, NBTR has been the lower-risk option at 0.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBTR or COMT?

Over the 1-year period, COMT has performed better with a 25.37% return vs 5.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBTR or COMT?

NBTR is cheaper with a 0.37% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for COMT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NBTR or COMT?

COMT has the higher dividend yield at 6.40%, compared with 5.55% for NBTR.

What is the main difference between NBTR and COMT?

NBTR is categorized as Intermediate Core-Plus Bond, while COMT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Neuberger and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.37% for NBTR and 0.48% for COMT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NBTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.48 vs 1.21), 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.