CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L
CMFP.L (L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF) and AUCP.L (L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMFP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward, while AUCP.L is a Precious Metals fund tracking the STOXX Global Gold Miners. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CMFP.L returned 9.22%/yr vs 16.41%/yr for AUCP.L. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMFP.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for AUCP.L.
Performance
CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMFP.L achieves a 19.16% return, which is significantly higher than AUCP.L's -0.57% return. Over the past 10 years, CMFP.L has underperformed AUCP.L with an annualized return of 9.22%, while AUCP.L has yielded a comparatively higher 16.41% annualized return.
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%
AUCP.L
- 1D
- 0.71%
- 1M
- -0.45%
- YTD
- -0.57%
- 6M
- 4.66%
- 1Y
- 65.77%
- 3Y*
- 46.06%
- 5Y*
- 23.58%
- 10Y*
- 16.41%
CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
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% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMFP.L and AUCP.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 CMFP.L and AUCP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (1 year) to 0.26 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CMFP.L
AUCP.L
Basic Materials
Consumer Defensive
-
Financial Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Communication Services
-
Real Estate
-
Technology
-
Energy
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Industrials
-
-
Utilities
-
-
Basic Materials
CMFP.L
AUCP.L
Consumer Defensive
CMFP.L
AUCP.L
-
Financial Services
CMFP.L
AUCP.L
-
Consumer Cyclical
CMFP.L
AUCP.L
-
Communication Services
CMFP.L
AUCP.L
-
Real Estate
CMFP.L
AUCP.L
-
Technology
CMFP.L
AUCP.L
-
Energy
CMFP.L
-
AUCP.L
-
Healthcare
CMFP.L
-
AUCP.L
-
Industrials
CMFP.L
-
AUCP.L
-
Utilities
CMFP.L
-
AUCP.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
CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L — Risk / Return Rank
CMFP.L
AUCP.L
CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) and L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.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.
| CMFP.L | AUCP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.67 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.79 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.25 | +0.14 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 4.81 | 2.21 | +2.59 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.77 | 5.70 | +6.07 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CMFP.L | AUCP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.16 | 1.49 | +0.67 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.89 | 0.65 | +0.24 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.66 | 0.47 | +0.19 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.27 | 0.26 | 0.00 |
Drawdowns
CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMFP.L drawdown since its inception was -50.47%, smaller than the maximum AUCP.L drawdown of -77.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMFP.L and AUCP.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMFP.L | AUCP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -50.47% | -77.57% | +27.10% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -6.63% | -29.56% | +22.93% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -12.97% | -29.56% | +16.59% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.51% | -39.38% | +15.87% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -23.95% | -45.72% | +21.77% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.64% | -25.67% | +22.03% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -24.51% | -35.74% | +11.23% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.71% | 11.51% | -8.80% |
Volatility
CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) is 4.82%, while L&G Gold Mining UCITS ETF (AUCP.L) has a volatility of 13.97%. This indicates that CMFP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AUCP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMFP.L | AUCP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.82% | 13.97% | -9.15% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.18% | 34.06% | -21.88% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.73% | 43.95% | -29.22% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.86% | 35.99% | -21.13% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.92% | 34.66% | -20.74% |
CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMFP.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than AUCP.L's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
CMFP.L vs. AUCP.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CMFP.L nor AUCP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CMFP.L and AUCP.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.
CMFP.L is categorized as Commodities, while AUCP.L is Precious Metals. CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward, while AUCP.L tracks STOXX Global Gold Miners. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CMFP.L and 0.55% for AUCP.L.
Find the right allocation for CMFP.L and AUCP.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