ZSB vs. COMT
ZSB (USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund) and COMT (iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZSB is a Lithium & Battery Metals fund tracking the S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index, while COMT is a Commodities fund tracking the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ZSB returned 1.20%/yr vs 10.95%/yr for COMT. Their 0.21 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. ZSB charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for COMT.
Performance
ZSB vs. COMT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZSB achieves a 2.41% return, which is significantly lower than COMT's 31.11% return.
ZSB
- 1D
- -0.91%
- 1M
- -0.65%
- 6M
- -5.21%
- YTD
- 2.41%
- 1Y
- 53.88%
- 3Y*
- 1.20%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- -2.10%
COMT
- 1D
- -0.06%
- 1M
- 8.11%
- 6M
- 19.02%
- YTD
- 31.11%
- 1Y
- 33.76%
- 3Y*
- 10.95%
- 5Y*
- 11.49%
- 10Y*
- 9.00%
- ALL TIME*
- 3.41%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $7.08M | $10.46M | $14.41M | |
| $1.74K | $3.93K | $10.44K |
ZSB vs. COMT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund | 2.41% | 64.34% | -19.70% | -31.38% |
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF | 31.11% | 6.07% | 5.96% | -2.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZSB and COMT is 0.10, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.10 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.22 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2023 | 0.21 |
The correlation between ZSB and COMT shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (1 year) to 0.22 (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
ZSB vs. COMT — Risk / Return Rank
ZSB
COMT
ZSB vs. COMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) 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.
| ZSB | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.55 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.45 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.38 | 1.26 | +0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.16 | 1.82 | +1.34 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.10 | 5.69 | +1.41 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ZSB vs. COMT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZSB drawdown since its inception was -49.26%, smaller than the maximum COMT drawdown of -51.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZSB and COMT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZSB | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -49.26% | -51.89% | +2.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.75% | -17.57% | +0.82% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -38.40% | -17.57% | -20.83% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -29.00% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -39.22% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.65% | -10.65% | -3.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -30.05% | -23.90% | -6.15% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.43% | 5.63% | +1.80% |
Volatility
ZSB vs. COMT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund (ZSB) is 3.57%, while iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT) has a volatility of 5.08%. This indicates that ZSB 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZSB | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.57% | 5.08% | -1.51% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.54% | 19.62% | +0.92% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 26.15% | 21.67% | +4.48% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.48% | 21.10% | -1.62% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 19.48% | 18.86% | +0.62% |
ZSB vs. COMT - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZSB has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than COMT's 0.48% expense ratio.
Dividends
ZSB vs. COMT - Dividend Comparison
ZSB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.90%, less than COMT's 5.90% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF | 5.90% | 7.74% | 4.90% | 5.19% | 29.79% | 17.79% | 0.36% | 2.61% | 11.65% | 5.16% | 0.52% | 1.44% |
ZSB USCF Sustainable Battery Metals Strategy Fund | 0.90% | 0.92% | 2.96% | 3.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZSB and COMT have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
COMT has higher volatility (5.08%) compared to ZSB (3.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZSB dropped -49.26% vs COMT's -51.89%.
On 3-year performance, COMT leads with 10.95% vs 1.20% for ZSB. On fees, COMT is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, ZSB has been the lower-risk option at 3.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, COMT has performed better with a 10.95% return vs 1.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
COMT is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for ZSB.
COMT has the higher dividend yield at 5.90%, compared with 0.90% for ZSB.
ZSB is categorized as Lithium & Battery Metals, while COMT is Commodities. ZSB tracks S&P GSCI Electric Vehicle Meals Index, while COMT tracks S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: USCF and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ZSB and 0.48% for COMT.
ZSB currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 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.
Find the right allocation for ZSB and COMT
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