BLV vs. COMT
BLV (Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF) and COMT (iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BLV is a Long-Term Bond fund tracking the Bloomberg U.S. Long Government/Credit Float Adjusted Index, while COMT is a Commodities fund tracking the S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, BLV returned 0.40%/yr vs 8.63%/yr for COMT. Their -0.15 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. BLV charges 0.03%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for COMT.
Performance
BLV vs. COMT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BLV achieves a -1.57% return, which is significantly lower than COMT's 29.49% return. Over the past 10 years, BLV has underperformed COMT with an annualized return of 0.40%, while COMT has yielded a comparatively higher 8.63% annualized return.
BLV
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- -2.23%
- 6M
- -1.47%
- YTD
- -1.57%
- 1Y
- -0.01%
- 3Y*
- 2.36%
- 5Y*
- -4.60%
- 10Y*
- 0.40%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.09%
COMT
- 1D
- 0.65%
- 1M
- 5.25%
- 6M
- 19.23%
- YTD
- 29.49%
- 1Y
- 33.46%
- 3Y*
- 10.63%
- 5Y*
- 11.85%
- 10Y*
- 8.63%
- ALL TIME*
- 3.30%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $54.73M | $52.77M | $45.58M | |
| $6.13M | $10.19M | $11.89M |
BLV vs. COMT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BLV Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF | -1.57% | 6.44% | -3.65% | 7.35% | -26.95% | -2.89% | 16.13% | 18.99% | -4.17% | 10.74% |
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF | 29.49% | 6.07% | 5.96% | -6.56% | 19.45% | 36.88% | -18.66% | 10.81% | -6.67% | 11.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between BLV and COMT is -0.39, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | -0.39 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | -0.21 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | -0.14 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | -0.14 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 16, 2014 | -0.15 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between BLV and COMT has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.15 to -0.39, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.
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
BLV vs. COMT — Risk / Return Rank
BLV
COMT
BLV vs. COMT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (BLV) and iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| BLV | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.56 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.01 | 1.27 | -0.27 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.00 | 1.91 | -1.91 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.00 | 5.84 | -5.84 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BLV vs. COMT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BLV drawdown since its inception was -38.29%, smaller than the maximum COMT drawdown of -51.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLV and COMT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BLV | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.29% | -51.89% | +13.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.92% | -17.57% | +11.65% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.70% | -17.57% | +5.87% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -36.27% | -29.00% | -7.27% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -38.29% | -39.22% | +0.93% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -25.54% | -11.75% | -13.79% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.64% | -23.89% | +14.25% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.69% | 5.75% | -3.06% |
Volatility
BLV vs. COMT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF (BLV) is 2.17%, while iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF (COMT) has a volatility of 5.13%. This indicates that BLV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than COMT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BLV | COMT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.17% | 5.13% | -2.96% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 6.02% | 18.95% | -12.93% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 7.78% | 21.64% | -13.86% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 12.91% | 21.09% | -8.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 11.95% | 18.86% | -6.91% |
BLV vs. COMT - Expense Ratio Comparison
BLV has a 0.03% expense ratio, which is lower than COMT's 0.48% expense ratio.
Dividends
BLV vs. COMT - Dividend Comparison
BLV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.93%, less than COMT's 5.98% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BLV Vanguard Long-Term Bond ETF | 4.93% | 4.67% | 5.09% | 4.06% | 4.17% | 3.37% | 6.12% | 3.57% | 4.07% | 3.63% | 4.16% | 4.37% |
COMT iShares GSCI Commodity Dynamic Roll Strategy ETF | 5.98% | 7.74% | 4.90% | 5.19% | 29.79% | 17.79% | 0.36% | 2.61% | 11.65% | 5.16% | 0.52% | 1.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BLV and COMT have a correlation of -0.39, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
COMT has higher volatility (5.13%) compared to BLV (2.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLV dropped -38.29% vs COMT's -51.89%.
On 10-year performance, COMT leads with 8.63% vs 0.40% for BLV. On fees, BLV is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, BLV has been the lower-risk option at 2.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, COMT has performed better with a 8.63% return vs 0.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BLV is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for COMT.
COMT has the higher dividend yield at 5.98%, compared with 4.93% for BLV.
BLV is categorized as Long-Term Bond, while COMT is Commodities. BLV tracks Bloomberg U.S. Long Government/Credit Float Adjusted Index, while COMT tracks S&P GSCI Dynamic Roll (USD) Total Return Index. They also come from different issuers: Vanguard and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.03% for BLV and 0.48% for COMT.
COMT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.55 vs -0.00), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for BLV and COMT
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