PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
PZT vs. CMDT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

PZT vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PZT) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PZT achieves a 3.02% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 13.43% return.


PZT

1D
0.06%
1M
2.13%
YTD
3.02%
6M
3.02%
1Y
8.57%
3Y*
2.90%
5Y*
-0.04%
10Y*
1.78%

CMDT

1D
-1.14%
1M
-8.86%
YTD
13.43%
6M
13.42%
1Y
21.34%
3Y*
12.77%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PZT vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
PZT
Invesco New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF
3.02%1.76%1.17%3.47%
CMDT
PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund
13.43%12.78%6.93%5.37%

Correlation

The correlation between PZT and CMDT is -0.21, 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

-0.21

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.02

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2023

-0.02

The correlation between PZT and CMDT shifts across timeframes, from -0.21 (1 year) to -0.02 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

PZT vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank

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

PZT
PZT Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
PZT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PZT Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
PZT Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
PZT Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
PZT Martin Ratio Rank: 5656
Martin Ratio Rank

CMDT
CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 4141
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 5858
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

PZT vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PZT) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). 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.


PZTCMDTDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.17

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

1.29

+0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.72

1.93

+0.79

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.22

9.62

-0.40

PZT vs. CMDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PZT Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the CMDT Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PZT and CMDT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

PZT vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PZT drawdown since its inception was -22.73%, which is greater than CMDT's maximum drawdown of -11.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PZT and CMDT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PZTCMDTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-22.73%

-11.11%

-11.62%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.17%

-11.11%

+7.94%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-9.00%

-11.11%

+2.11%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.13%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-19.13%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.28%

-11.11%

+9.83%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.90%

-2.77%

-1.13%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.93%

2.25%

-1.32%

Volatility

PZT vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF (PZT) is 1.38%, while PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) has a volatility of 3.26%. This indicates that PZT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PZTCMDTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.38%

3.26%

-1.88%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

3.51%

10.60%

-7.09%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

4.69%

12.65%

-7.96%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

6.64%

12.24%

-5.60%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

6.93%

12.24%

-5.31%

PZT vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

PZT has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is lower than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.


Dividends

PZT vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison

PZT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.61%, more than CMDT's 2.67% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CMDT
PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund
2.67%3.04%8.80%2.71%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
PZT
Invesco New York AMT-Free Municipal Bond ETF
3.61%3.43%3.04%2.82%2.66%2.77%2.55%2.73%3.01%2.94%3.36%3.40%

Frequently Asked Questions


PZT and CMDT have a correlation of -0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CMDT has higher volatility (3.26%) compared to PZT (1.38%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PZT dropped -22.73% vs CMDT's -11.11%.

On 3-year performance, CMDT leads with 12.77% vs 2.90% for PZT. On fees, PZT is cheaper at 0.28% per year. On volatility, PZT has been the lower-risk option at 1.38%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 12.77% return vs 2.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

PZT is cheaper with a 0.28% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CMDT.

PZT has the higher dividend yield at 3.61%, compared with 2.67% for CMDT.

PZT is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while CMDT is Commodities. PZT tracks ICE BofA New York Long-Term Core Plus Muni, while CMDT tracks Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for PZT and 0.65% for CMDT.

PZT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 1.71), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for PZT and CMDT

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