NRES vs. CCNR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

NRES (Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF) and CCNR (ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF) are both Natural Resources funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NRES returned 27.15% vs 52.68% for CCNR. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NRES charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for CCNR.

Performance

NRES vs. CCNR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF (NRES) 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, NRES achieves a 9.86% return, which is significantly lower than CCNR's 17.60% return.

NRES

• 1D: -0.31%
• 1M: -5.25%
• YTD: 9.86%
• 6M: 9.71%
• 1Y: 27.15%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CCNR

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: -6.50%
• YTD: 17.60%
• 6M: 17.78%
• 1Y: 52.68%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NRES vs. CCNR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NRES Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF	9.86%	27.08%	-10.03%
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	17.60%	46.48%	-7.79%

Correlation

The correlation between NRES and CCNR is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	0.89

The correlation between NRES and CCNR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

NRES vs. CCNR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NRES	CCNR
Basic Materials	48.9%	34.5%
Energy	32.7%	34.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	0.3%
Consumer Defensive	6.0%	8.3%
Real Estate	1.4%	0.5%
Healthcare	1.0%	-
Industrials	0.9%	7.1%
Communication Services	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.6%
Technology	-	6.0%
Utilities	-	9.4%

Return for Risk

NRES vs. CCNR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NRES

NRES Risk / Return Rank: 49
NRES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
NRES Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
NRES Omega Ratio Rank: 43
NRES Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
NRES Martin Ratio Rank: 56

CCNR

CCNR Risk / Return Rank: 88
CCNR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
CCNR Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
CCNR Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CCNR Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
CCNR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

NRES vs. CCNR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF (NRES) 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.

	NRES	CCNR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.56	2.83	-1.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	3.49	-1.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.48	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.80	5.86	-3.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.51	22.23	-12.72

NRES vs. CCNR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NRES Sharpe Ratio is 1.56, which is lower than the CCNR Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NRES 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

NRES vs. CCNR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NRES drawdown since its inception was -22.22%, which is greater than CCNR's maximum drawdown of -20.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NRES and CCNR.

Drawdown Indicators

	NRES	CCNR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.22%	-20.06%	-2.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.74%	-9.04%	-0.70%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.74%	-8.57%	-1.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.26%	-3.62%	-1.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.86%	2.38%	+0.48%

Volatility

NRES vs. CCNR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF (NRES) is 5.68%, while ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF (CCNR) has a volatility of 6.85%. This indicates that NRES 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

	NRES	CCNR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.68%	6.85%	-1.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.86%	13.97%	-0.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.48%	18.74%	-1.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.14%	20.12%	-1.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.14%	20.12%	-1.98%

NRES vs. CCNR - Expense Ratio Comparison

NRES has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is higher than CCNR's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

NRES vs. CCNR - Dividend Comparison

NRES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.58%, less than CCNR's 2.96% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CCNR ALPS/CoreCommodity Natural Resources ETF	2.96%	3.48%	1.27%
NRES Xtrackers RREEF Global Natural Resources ETF	2.58%	2.65%	3.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NRES and CCNR in my portfolio?

NRES and CCNR have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NRES or CCNR?

CCNR has higher volatility (6.85%) compared to NRES (5.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NRES dropped -22.22% vs CCNR's -20.06%.

Which ETF is better, NRES or CCNR?

On 1-year performance, CCNR leads with 52.68% vs 27.15% for NRES. On fees, CCNR is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, NRES has been the lower-risk option at 5.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NRES or CCNR?

Over the 1-year period, CCNR has performed better with a 52.68% return vs 27.15%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NRES or CCNR?

CCNR is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for NRES.

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

CCNR has the higher dividend yield at 2.96%, compared with 2.58% for NRES.

What is the main difference between NRES and CCNR?

They also come from different issuers: Xtrackers and ALPS. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for NRES and 0.39% for CCNR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CCNR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.83 vs 1.56), 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.