BCOG.L vs. RTWP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BCOG.L (L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF) and RTWP.L (L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BCOG.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity, while RTWP.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BCOG.L returned 12.73%/yr vs 8.12%/yr for RTWP.L. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BCOG.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for RTWP.L.

Performance

BCOG.L vs. RTWP.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 Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BCOG.L achieves a 26.69% return, which is significantly higher than RTWP.L's 15.30% 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*: —

RTWP.L

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: 4.26%
• YTD: 15.30%
• 6M: 15.09%
• 1Y: 34.36%
• 3Y*: 14.42%
• 5Y*: 8.12%
• 10Y*: 12.09%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BCOG.L L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF	26.69%	8.16%	6.13%	-12.32%	29.36%	29.04%	-6.24%	1.82%	-4.64%	1.28%
RTWP.L L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF	15.30%	3.61%	11.18%	13.44%	-8.94%	20.68%	15.78%	20.59%	-7.77%	4.35%

Correlation

The correlation between BCOG.L and RTWP.L is -0.17, 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	-0.17
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.01
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2017	0.19

The correlation between BCOG.L and RTWP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.17 (1 year) to 0.19 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	BCOG.L	RTWP.L
Basic Materials	35.8%	4.6%
Financial Services	17.8%	15.3%
Consumer Cyclical	12.9%	8.6%
Communication Services	12.3%	2.4%
Consumer Defensive	9.7%	2.7%
Real Estate	5.8%	5.9%
Technology	5.6%	20.0%
Energy	-	5.3%
Healthcare	-	14.5%
Industrials	-	17.9%
Utilities	-	2.8%

Return for Risk

BCOG.L vs. RTWP.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: 65
BCOG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
BCOG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
BCOG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 63
BCOG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
BCOG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 59

RTWP.L

RTWP.L Risk / Return Rank: 70
RTWP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RTWP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
RTWP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 60
RTWP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
RTWP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. RTWP.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 Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.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.L	RTWP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	2.20	-0.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.64	3.02	-0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.37	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.57	4.62	-0.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.61	13.92	-3.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current BCOG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the RTWP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BCOG.L and RTWP.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BCOG.L	RTWP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.13	2.20	-0.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	0.42	+0.33
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.59	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.50	0.69	-0.19

Drawdowns

BCOG.L vs. RTWP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BCOG.L drawdown since its inception was -28.15%, smaller than the maximum RTWP.L drawdown of -35.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BCOG.L and RTWP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	BCOG.L	RTWP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.15%	-35.32%	+7.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.57%	-7.40%	-1.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.48%	-28.77%	+14.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.76%	-28.77%	+1.01%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.32%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.86%	-0.79%	-3.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.67%	-7.05%	-4.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.70%	2.46%	+1.24%

Volatility

BCOG.L vs. RTWP.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF (BCOG.L) has a higher volatility of 6.04% compared to L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.L) at 4.58%. This indicates that BCOG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RTWP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BCOG.L	RTWP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.04%	4.58%	+1.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.82%	10.89%	+4.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.45%	15.63%	+2.82%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.88%	19.24%	-2.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.70%	20.40%	-4.70%

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

BCOG.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than RTWP.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

BCOG.L vs. RTWP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BCOG.L and RTWP.L in my portfolio?

BCOG.L and RTWP.L have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, BCOG.L or RTWP.L?

On fees, BCOG.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, BCOG.L or RTWP.L?

BCOG.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for RTWP.L.

What is the main difference between BCOG.L and RTWP.L?

BCOG.L is categorized as Commodities, while RTWP.L is Small Cap Blend Equities. BCOG.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity, while RTWP.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for BCOG.L and 0.30% for RTWP.L.