PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) and L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AUCP.L achieves a -0.57% return, which is significantly lower than CMFP.L's 19.16% return. Over the past 10 years, AUCP.L has outperformed CMFP.L with an annualized return of 16.41%, while CMFP.L has yielded a comparatively lower 9.22% annualized return.


AUCP.L

1D
0.71%
1M
-6.20%
YTD
-0.57%
6M
4.32%
1Y
64.93%
3Y*
46.06%
5Y*
23.58%
10Y*
16.41%

CMFP.L

1D
-1.12%
1M
-1.18%
YTD
19.16%
6M
18.60%
1Y
32.00%
3Y*
10.92%
5Y*
13.29%
10Y*
9.22%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
AUCP.L
L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF
-0.57%161.99%20.20%8.69%-4.04%-8.91%17.60%39.53%-5.63%0.57%
CMFP.L
L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF
19.16%8.49%6.86%-11.43%32.79%34.61%-0.92%3.99%-3.16%-6.17%

Correlation

The correlation between AUCP.L and CMFP.L is 0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.08

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.21

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.23

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.26

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 26, 2010

0.25

The correlation between AUCP.L and CMFP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (1 year) to 0.26 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
AUCP.L
CMFP.L

Basic Materials

100.0%
49.3%

Communication Services

-

7.6%

Consumer Cyclical

-

8.3%

Consumer Defensive

-

13.6%

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

10.7%

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Real Estate

-

5.5%

Technology

-

5.1%

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

AUCP.L
100.0%
CMFP.L
49.3%

Communication Services

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L
7.6%

Consumer Cyclical

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L
8.3%

Consumer Defensive

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L
13.6%

Energy

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L

-

Financial Services

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L
10.7%

Healthcare

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L

-

Industrials

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L

-

Real Estate

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L
5.5%

Technology

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L
5.1%

Utilities

AUCP.L

-

CMFP.L

-

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

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

AUCP.L
AUCP.L Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
AUCP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4343
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 3939
Omega Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
AUCP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank

CMFP.L
CMFP.L Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMFP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMFP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
CMFP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMFP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) and L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L). 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.


AUCP.LCMFP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.67

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.79

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.39

-0.14

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.21

4.81

-2.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.70

11.77

-6.07

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AUCP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is lower than the CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AUCP.L and CMFP.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


AUCP.LCMFP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.49

2.16

-0.67

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.65

0.89

-0.24

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

0.66

-0.19

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.26

0.27

0.00

Drawdowns

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AUCP.L drawdown since its inception was -77.57%, which is greater than CMFP.L's maximum drawdown of -50.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AUCP.L and CMFP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


AUCP.LCMFP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-77.57%

-50.47%

-27.10%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-29.56%

-6.63%

-22.93%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.56%

-12.97%

-16.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.38%

-23.51%

-15.87%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-45.72%

-23.95%

-21.77%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-25.67%

-3.64%

-22.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-35.74%

-24.51%

-11.23%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

11.51%

2.71%

+8.80%

Volatility

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) has a higher volatility of 13.97% compared to L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) at 4.82%. This indicates that AUCP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMFP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


AUCP.LCMFP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.97%

4.82%

+9.15%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

34.06%

12.18%

+21.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

43.95%

14.73%

+29.22%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

35.99%

14.86%

+21.13%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

34.66%

13.92%

+20.74%

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

AUCP.L has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than CMFP.L's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

AUCP.L vs. CMFP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither AUCP.L nor CMFP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


AUCP.L and CMFP.L have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CMFP.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CMFP.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for AUCP.L.

AUCP.L is categorized as Precious Metals, while CMFP.L is Commodities. AUCP.L tracks STOXX Global Gold Miners, while CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for AUCP.L and 0.30% for CMFP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for AUCP.L and CMFP.L

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