ETFIQ
RankingsCompareHoldingsFlowsResearch
Ask ETFIQETF ModelsMy portfolioWeekly note
A
vs
B
Share on XDownload as PDFCompare their flowsAsk about these two funds

CMDT vs COMB: how they differ

CMDT and COMB hold 0% of their weight in the same names, and COMB returned +40.1% over the year. PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund and GraniteShares Bloomberg Commodity Broad Strategy No K-1 ETF.

COMB costs 0.40 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 8.5 points; CMDT is 4.7 times larger.

CMDTCOMB
Expense ratio0.65%0.25%
Net assets, CMDT as of Jun 30, 2026 and COMB as of Oct 8, 2026$751m$161m
Total return, 1 year+31.6%+40.1%
Holdings in common0%

Holdings in common uses holdings dated Jun 30, 2026.

+31.6%
CMDT total return, 1 year
+40.1%
COMB total return, 1 year
0.65%
CMDT expense ratio
0.25%
COMB expense ratio

What they hold in common

By the books each fund has filed, CMDT and COMB hold 0% of their money in the same securities at the same weight. Above 50%, holding both is close to holding one of them twice. Holdings dated Jun 30, 2026.

half

0% in common

Positions both hold, largest shared weight first
Holding CMDT COMB
Only in CMDT
PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active Exchange-Traded Fund 5.91%
ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS IN 1.45%
LETRA TESOURO NACIONAL 1.43%
BANK OF MONTREAL 1.37%
TRANSCANADA PIPELINES 1.15%
ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 1.03%
Fannie Mae 0.94%
WELLS FARGO & COMPANY 0.94%
Only in COMB

On the same fields

CMDT
PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund
COMB
GraniteShares Bloomberg Commodity Broad Strategy No K-1 ETF
Where it sits Commodity ETF Commodity ETF
Issuer PIMCO GraniteShares
What it is Actively managed Actively managed
Total return, 1 year +31.6% +40.1%
S&P 500 over the same days +17.3% +17.3%
Gap to the S&P 500 +14.4 pts +22.9 pts
Expense ratio 0.65% 0.25%
Holdings 259 0
Net assets, CMDT as of Jun 30, 2026 and COMB as of Oct 8, 2026 $751m $161m

CMDT and COMB on the fields both publish, as of Oct 9, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.

CMDT in plain words

CMDT is actively managed and tracks no index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.65% a year.

Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +31.6% with distributions reinvested, against +40.2% for its benchmark, the Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return.

COMB in plain words

COMB is actively managed and tracks no index. The prospectus expense ratio is 0.25% a year.

Over the year to Oct 9, 2026 it returned +40.1% with distributions reinvested, against +40.2% for its benchmark, the Bloomberg Commodity Total Return Index.

Questions people ask

Which returned more over the last year, CMDT or COMB?
In the year to Oct 9, 2026, with distributions reinvested, CMDT returned +31.6% and COMB +40.1%.
Which is cheaper, CMDT or COMB?
COMB is cheaper, by 0.40 percentage points a year. On $10,000 held for a year that difference is about $40. Fees come from each fund's prospectus.
Other comparisons
CMDT vs FAARCMDT vs PITCMDT vs CMDYCMDT vs DBCCOMB vs GSGCOMB vs NBCMCOMB vs COMTCOMB vs DBC
CMDT on its own →COMB on its own →Hold both: look the portfolio through →Rankings →Standards and sources →
Where these figures came from
CMDT filings on SEC EDGAR ↗CMDT prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗PIMCO website ↗COMB filings on SEC EDGAR ↗COMB prospectus with the expense ratio (SEC) ↗GraniteShares page for COMB ↗

ETFIQ links to the documents behind every figure; a link is not an endorsement. A comparison is not a recommendation.

How this is computed

Weight overlap is an ETFIQ calculation: for every security both funds hold, the smaller of the two weights, summed.

Cite this page

ETFIQ, CMDT against COMB, data as of Oct 9, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/any/cmdt-vs-comb

Open data

Free to use with attribution for figures ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.