ZSB vs. CMDT

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - ZSB is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index, while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ZSB returned 1.91%/yr vs 12.77%/yr for CMDT. At a 0.33 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ZSB charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.

Performance

ZSB vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZSB achieves a 4.41% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 13.43% return.

ZSB

• 1D: -2.97%
• 1M: -7.84%
• YTD: 4.41%
• 6M: 6.25%
• 1Y: 59.70%
• 3Y*: 1.91%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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)

ZSB vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	4.41%	64.34%	-19.70%	-21.63%
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	13.43%	12.78%	6.93%	5.37%

Correlation

The correlation between ZSB and CMDT is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.28
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2023	0.33

Return for Risk

ZSB vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZSB

ZSB Risk / Return Rank: 71
ZSB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
ZSB Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
ZSB Omega Ratio Rank: 78
ZSB Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
ZSB Martin Ratio Rank: 59

CMDT

CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 50
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 48
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 58

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.

ZSB vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) 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.

	ZSB	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	1.71	+0.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.71	2.39	+0.32
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.29	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.58	1.93	+1.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.56	9.62	-0.06

ZSB vs. CMDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZSB Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is higher than the CMDT Sharpe Ratio of 1.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZSB 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.

Drawdowns

ZSB vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZSB drawdown since its inception was -49.26%, which is greater than CMDT's maximum drawdown of -11.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZSB and CMDT.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZSB	CMDT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.26%	-11.11%	-38.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.75%	-11.11%	-5.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-43.22%	-11.11%	-32.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.97%	-11.11%	-0.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-30.58%	-2.77%	-27.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.27%	2.25%	+4.02%

Volatility

ZSB vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison

USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) has a higher volatility of 5.63% compared to PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) at 3.26%. This indicates that ZSB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZSB	CMDT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.63%	3.26%	+2.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.46%	10.60%	+11.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.67%	12.65%	+14.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.62%	12.24%	+7.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.62%	12.24%	+7.38%

ZSB vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZSB has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ZSB vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison

ZSB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, less than CMDT's 2.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.67%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund	0.88%	0.92%	2.96%	3.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZSB and CMDT in my portfolio?

ZSB and CMDT have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZSB or CMDT?

ZSB has higher volatility (5.63%) compared to CMDT (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZSB dropped -49.26% vs CMDT's -11.11%.

Which ETF is better, ZSB or CMDT?

On 3-year performance, CMDT leads with 12.77% vs 1.91% for ZSB. On fees, ZSB is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, CMDT has been the lower-risk option at 3.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZSB or CMDT?

Over the 3-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 12.77% return vs 1.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZSB or CMDT?

ZSB is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CMDT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ZSB or CMDT?

CMDT has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 0.88% for ZSB.

What is the main difference between ZSB and CMDT?

ZSB is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while CMDT is Commodities. ZSB tracks S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index, while CMDT tracks Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: USCF and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ZSB and 0.65% for CMDT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 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.