TURF vs. PICK

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

TURF (T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF) and PICK (iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TURF is a Natural Resources fund managed by T. Rowe Price, while PICK is a Metals fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Select Metals & Mining Producers ex Gold and Silver Investable Market Index. Over the past year, TURF returned 25.54% vs 63.17% for PICK. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TURF charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for PICK.

Performance

TURF vs. PICK - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF (TURF) and iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TURF achieves a 6.67% return, which is significantly lower than PICK's 14.51% return.

TURF

• 1D: -2.13%
• 1M: -9.62%
• YTD: 6.67%
• 6M: 6.34%
• 1Y: 25.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PICK

• 1D: -2.43%
• 1M: -7.52%
• YTD: 14.51%
• 6M: 14.07%
• 1Y: 63.17%
• 3Y*: 17.30%
• 5Y*: 9.85%
• 10Y*: 16.39%

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

TURF vs. PICK - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TURF T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF	6.67%	17.82%
PICK iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF	14.51%	40.08%

Correlation

The correlation between TURF and PICK is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2025	0.72

The correlation between TURF and PICK has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

TURF vs. PICK - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TURF	PICK
Basic Materials	49.6%	96.0%
Energy	33.9%	0.0%
Consumer Defensive	15.0%	0.1%
Communication Services	3.8%	-
Financial Services	2.4%	0.1%
Consumer Cyclical	1.1%	-
Technology	0.4%	0.9%
Utilities	0.3%	-
Industrials	0.2%	3.1%
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

TURF vs. PICK — Risk / Return Rank

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

TURF

TURF Risk / Return Rank: 49
TURF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
TURF Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
TURF Omega Ratio Rank: 46
TURF Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
TURF Martin Ratio Rank: 58

PICK

PICK Risk / Return Rank: 69
PICK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
PICK Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
PICK Omega Ratio Rank: 67
PICK Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
PICK Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

TURF vs. PICK - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF (TURF) and iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK). 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.

	TURF	PICK	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.48	2.10	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.99	2.60	-0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.36	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.97	3.25	-1.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.02	12.00	-2.98

TURF vs. PICK - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TURF Sharpe Ratio is 1.48, which is comparable to the PICK Sharpe Ratio of 2.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TURF and PICK, 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

TURF vs. PICK - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TURF drawdown since its inception was -13.04%, smaller than the maximum PICK drawdown of -68.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TURF and PICK.

Drawdown Indicators

	TURF	PICK	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.04%	-68.87%	+55.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.04%	-19.54%	+6.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-32.52%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-36.37%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-52.72%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.04%	-14.71%	+1.67%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.88%	-24.05%	+22.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.84%	5.28%	-2.44%

Volatility

TURF vs. PICK - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF (TURF) is 6.35%, while iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK) has a volatility of 13.30%. This indicates that TURF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PICK based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TURF	PICK	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.35%	13.30%	-6.95%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.22%	26.68%	-12.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.35%	30.24%	-12.89%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.20%	28.15%	-10.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.20%	28.34%	-11.14%

TURF vs. PICK - Expense Ratio Comparison

TURF has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is higher than PICK's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

TURF vs. PICK - Dividend Comparison

TURF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.40%, less than PICK's 2.26% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PICK iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF	2.26%	2.88%	3.26%	4.19%	6.93%	5.89%	2.27%	5.51%	4.77%	2.41%	1.15%	15.77%
TURF T. Rowe Price Natural Resources ETF	1.40%	1.49%	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 TURF and PICK in my portfolio?

TURF and PICK have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TURF or PICK?

PICK has higher volatility (13.30%) compared to TURF (6.35%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TURF dropped -13.04% vs PICK's -68.87%.

Which ETF is better, TURF or PICK?

On 1-year performance, PICK leads with 63.17% vs 25.54% for TURF. On fees, PICK is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, TURF has been the lower-risk option at 6.35%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TURF or PICK?

Over the 1-year period, PICK has performed better with a 63.17% return vs 25.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TURF or PICK?

PICK is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for TURF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TURF or PICK?

PICK has the higher dividend yield at 2.26%, compared with 1.40% for TURF.

What is the main difference between TURF and PICK?

TURF is categorized as Natural Resources, while PICK is Metals. They also come from different issuers: T. Rowe Price and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TURF and 0.39% for PICK.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PICK currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.10 vs 1.48), 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.