CANE vs WEAT ETF Comparison
Compare CANE and WEAT across fund costs, diversification, holdings, performance, income, risk and current AlgovestIQ evidence.
What is the main difference between CANE and WEAT?
CANE is Teucrium Sugar Fund, while WEAT is Teucrium Wheat Fund. CANE is tied to Commodities; WEAT is tied to Commodities. WEAT is more concentrated at the top, based on top-10 holdings weight. Current AlgovestIQ evidence has CANE ahead on AIQ Score, 60 versus 59.
| Metric | CANE | WEAT | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.54% | 0.62% | Fund |
| Assets under management | $60M | $340M | Fund |
| Holdings | 1 | 1 | Fund |
| Top-10 concentration | 16% | 32.6% | Fund |
| Average volume | 33,588 | 769,823 | Fund |
| Underlying exposure | Commodities | Commodities | Fund |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 24.3% | Risk |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -14.4% | Risk |
| Beta | -0.12 | -0.13 | Risk |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | 1.05 | Risk |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 2.02 | Risk |
| AIQ Score | 60/100 | 59/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| AIQ Edge Score | 8/10 | 8/10 | AlgovestIQ |
| Momentum | 74/100 | 79/100 | AlgovestIQ |
| Risk Resilience | 48/100 | 54/100 | AlgovestIQ |
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Teucrium Sugar Fund vs Teucrium Wheat Fund
CANE leads
CANE leads by 1 AIQ points, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 0 of 3 evidence groups support CANE, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Teucrium Sugar Fund
Teucrium Wheat Fund
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CANE over WEAT, 60 versus 59 as of Sep 5, 2026. CANE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor CANE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. CANE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Teucrium Sugar Fund and Teucrium Wheat Fund across performance, expense ratio, dividend yield, drawdown, volatility and the Algovestiq AIQ Score.
Compare CANE and WEAT against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 54WEAT +6
- Momentum25%74 vs 79WEAT +5
- Quality30%40 vs 44WEAT +4
0 of 3 evidence groups favor CANE. Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -3
No new signals fired.
CANE's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CANE and WEAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CANE (Teucrium Sugar Fund): the stronger current systematic profile.
WEAT (Teucrium Wheat Fund): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, quality.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
CANECANE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WEATWEAT on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
WEATWEAT on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
Fund facts, side by side
Two funds tracking overlapping universes are separated by cost and risk far more than by holdings. Those lead here.
| Measure | CANE | WEAT | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense ratio | 0.54% | 0.62% | Lower is better — it compounds against you every year you hold. |
| Assets under management | $60M | $340M | Larger funds generally carry tighter spreads. |
| Holdings | 32 | 32 | More holdings means broader diversification, not better returns. |
| Average volume | 33,588 | 769,823 | Liquidity — matters most if you trade size. |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 24.3% | Lower is a steadier ride for the same exposure. |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -14.4% | The worst peak-to-trough loss on record for the fund. |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | 1.05 | Return per unit of risk. Higher is better. |
| Beta | -0.12 | -0.13 | Sensitivity to the broad market. Neither direction is better — it depends on the role in your portfolio. |
Where the exposure actually sits
CANE and WEAT share 15.99% of their weighted exposure across 1 common holdings.
WEAT is the more concentrated of the two: its ten largest positions are 32.59% of the fund, against 15.99% for CANE (1 holdings vs 1). Concentration cuts both ways — it is what drives outperformance when the top names work, and what makes the drawdown deeper when they do not.
0 holdings are unique to CANE and 0 to WEAT. Owning both is genuinely additive — most of the capital sits in different securities.
Largest shared positions
| Holding | CANE | WEAT | Shared |
|---|---|---|---|
| FGTXXGoldman Sachs Financial Square Government Fund 12/31/2031 | 15.99% | 32.59% | 15.99% |
Shared weight is the lower of the two positions — the portion of capital both funds genuinely have in the same security.
ETF comparison questions
Short answers to the fund-specific questions behind this comparison.
Which ETF is more diversified, CANE or WEAT?
Use holdings count, top-10 concentration and sector exposure together; the current dataset does not show a decisive holdings-count edge.
Which has the lower expense ratio?
CANE has the lower reported expense ratio in the current fund profile.
Which ETF has the higher distribution yield?
The current dataset does not show a higher-yield winner.
Which ETF has been more volatile?
WEAT has the higher annualized volatility in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has had the smaller drawdown?
WEAT has the less severe max drawdown in the current risk snapshot.
Which ETF has the stronger current AlgovestIQ evidence?
CANE currently leads on supporting AlgovestIQ evidence, 60 to 59.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 of 3 covered evidence groups favor CANE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 10.8% vs 7.5%; vs 200-day 16.2% vs 19.6% |
| Risk Resilience | WEAT | Risk Resilience 48 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CANE and WEAT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CANE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3CANE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CANE +1
- 60 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- CANE +1
- 60 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- CANE +13
- 62 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- CANE +12
- 61 vs 49
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 3 when CANE moved ahead of WEAT.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.14%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.60%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
WEAT is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.26%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.32%, AIQ 0 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1WEAT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 2CANE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 3The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate CANE's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Technicals
Split| Metric | CANE | WEAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 65.2 | 72.1 |
| ADX (14) | 45.3 | 28.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.8% | 7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.2% | 19.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.1% | 28.5% |
Risk
WEAT is the more resilient| Metric | CANE | WEAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.12 | -0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 2.02 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -14.4% |
| Current drawdown | -2.3% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 24.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CANE or WEAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CANE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 60 against WEAT's 59. The edge comes from its factor profile. WEAT is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is CANE or WEAT the better buy right now?
CANE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 3 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CANE over WEAT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WEAT leads Risk Resilience by 6 points; WEAT leads Momentum by 5 points; WEAT leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, CANE or WEAT?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, CANE or WEAT?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, CANE or WEAT?
WEAT on the Momentum factor, by 5 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, CANE or WEAT?
WEAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WEAT on Risk Resilience, by 6 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CANE more profitable than WEAT?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is CANE's lead over WEAT getting stronger or weaker?
CANE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-03, when CANE moved ahead of WEAT.
What would change the CANE vs WEAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WEAT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CANE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate CANE's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CANE and WEAT?
CANE: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. WEAT: 5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on CANE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WEAT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CANE and WEAT with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.