PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF (BCOG.L) and L&G Japan Equity UCITS ETF (LGJG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCOG.L achieves a 26.69% return, which is significantly higher than LGJG.L's 14.89% return.


BCOG.L

1D
0.70%
1M
-0.33%
YTD
26.69%
6M
24.71%
1Y
39.39%
3Y*
13.46%
5Y*
12.73%
10Y*

LGJG.L

1D
0.78%
1M
7.60%
YTD
14.89%
6M
15.98%
1Y
31.33%
3Y*
15.55%
5Y*
10.10%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
BCOG.L
L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF
26.69%8.16%6.13%-12.32%29.36%29.04%-6.24%-0.08%
LGJG.L
L&G Japan Equity UCITS ETF
14.89%17.46%10.01%13.64%-6.84%1.78%13.24%11.39%

Correlation

The correlation between BCOG.L and LGJG.L is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


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

-0.20

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

-0.01

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

0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 8, 2019

0.11

The correlation between BCOG.L and LGJG.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to 0.11 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
BCOG.L
LGJG.L

Basic Materials

35.8%
3.8%

Financial Services

17.8%
17.4%

Consumer Cyclical

12.9%
12.5%

Communication Services

12.3%
8.5%

Consumer Defensive

9.7%
3.7%

Real Estate

5.8%
2.7%

Technology

5.6%
19.8%

Energy

-

0.7%

Healthcare

-

5.7%

Industrials

-

24.2%

Utilities

-

1.0%

Basic Materials

BCOG.L
35.8%
LGJG.L
3.8%

Financial Services

BCOG.L
17.8%
LGJG.L
17.4%

Consumer Cyclical

BCOG.L
12.9%
LGJG.L
12.5%

Communication Services

BCOG.L
12.3%
LGJG.L
8.5%

Consumer Defensive

BCOG.L
9.7%
LGJG.L
3.7%

Real Estate

BCOG.L
5.8%
LGJG.L
2.7%

Technology

BCOG.L
5.6%
LGJG.L
19.8%

Energy

BCOG.L

-

LGJG.L
0.7%

Healthcare

BCOG.L

-

LGJG.L
5.7%

Industrials

BCOG.L

-

LGJG.L
24.2%

Utilities

BCOG.L

-

LGJG.L
1.0%

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

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

BCOG.L
BCOG.L Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
BCOG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BCOG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
BCOG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6363
Omega Ratio Rank
BCOG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8484
Calmar Ratio Rank
BCOG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5959
Martin Ratio Rank

LGJG.L
LGJG.L Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
LGJG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LGJG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
LGJG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
LGJG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
LGJG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5353
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.

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF (BCOG.L) and L&G Japan Equity UCITS ETF (LGJG.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.


BCOG.LLGJG.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.36

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.34

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.57

2.83

+1.75

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

10.61

9.15

+1.47

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BCOG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the LGJG.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCOG.L and LGJG.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


BCOG.LLGJG.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.13

1.77

+0.36

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.75

0.65

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.50

0.64

-0.14

Drawdowns

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCOG.L drawdown since its inception was -28.15%, which is greater than LGJG.L's maximum drawdown of -22.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCOG.L and LGJG.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BCOG.LLGJG.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.15%

-22.92%

-5.23%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.57%

-11.04%

+2.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.48%

-13.84%

-0.64%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-27.76%

-18.20%

-9.56%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.86%

0.00%

-3.86%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.67%

-5.16%

-6.51%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.70%

3.42%

+0.28%

Volatility

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF (BCOG.L) has a higher volatility of 6.04% compared to L&G Japan Equity UCITS ETF (LGJG.L) at 3.77%. This indicates that BCOG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LGJG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BCOG.LLGJG.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.04%

3.77%

+2.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.82%

14.24%

+1.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.45%

17.63%

+0.82%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.88%

15.58%

+1.30%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.70%

16.81%

-1.11%

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

BCOG.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than LGJG.L's 0.10% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

BCOG.L vs. LGJG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither BCOG.L nor LGJG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


BCOG.L and LGJG.L have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, LGJG.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

LGJG.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for BCOG.L.

BCOG.L is categorized as Commodities, while LGJG.L is Japan Equities. BCOG.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity, while LGJG.L tracks TOPIX TR JPY. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for BCOG.L and 0.10% for LGJG.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BCOG.L and LGJG.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