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

Performance

CMFP.L vs. CXAP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) and UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CXAP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMFP.L achieves a 19.16% return, which is significantly lower than CXAP.L's 25.34% return. Over the past 10 years, CMFP.L has underperformed CXAP.L with an annualized return of 9.22%, while CXAP.L has yielded a comparatively higher 11.86% 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%

CXAP.L

1D
-0.75%
1M
1.43%
YTD
25.34%
6M
26.88%
1Y
44.84%
3Y*
14.83%
5Y*
14.55%
10Y*
11.86%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
CXAP.L
UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc
25.34%10.65%8.67%-10.60%27.69%36.79%-4.93%7.15%-6.02%5.06%

Correlation

The correlation between CMFP.L and CXAP.L is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.91

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

0.89

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

0.87

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

0.86

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2016

0.86

The correlation between CMFP.L and CXAP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

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


Sectors
CMFP.L
CXAP.L

Basic Materials

49.3%
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

13.6%
3.9%

Financial Services

10.7%
12.6%

Consumer Cyclical

8.3%
10.6%

Communication Services

7.6%
10.6%

Real Estate

5.5%
0.2%

Technology

5.1%
32.6%

Energy

-

2.9%

Healthcare

-

6.4%

Industrials

-

14.6%

Utilities

-

4.4%

Basic Materials

CMFP.L
49.3%
CXAP.L
1.4%

Consumer Defensive

CMFP.L
13.6%
CXAP.L
3.9%

Financial Services

CMFP.L
10.7%
CXAP.L
12.6%

Consumer Cyclical

CMFP.L
8.3%
CXAP.L
10.6%

Communication Services

CMFP.L
7.6%
CXAP.L
10.6%

Real Estate

CMFP.L
5.5%
CXAP.L
0.2%

Technology

CMFP.L
5.1%
CXAP.L
32.6%

Energy

CMFP.L

-

CXAP.L
2.9%

Healthcare

CMFP.L

-

CXAP.L
6.4%

Industrials

CMFP.L

-

CXAP.L
14.6%

Utilities

CMFP.L

-

CXAP.L
4.4%

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. CXAP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

CXAP.L
CXAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
CXAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CXAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
CXAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
CXAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
CXAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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.

CMFP.L vs. CXAP.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 UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CXAP.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.LCXAP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.70

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.93

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.39

1.51

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.81

7.76

-2.95

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.77

20.14

-8.37

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

The current CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is comparable to the CXAP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMFP.L and CXAP.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


CMFP.LCXAP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.16

2.87

-0.70

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.89

0.90

-0.01

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.66

0.74

-0.08

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.27

0.76

-0.49

Drawdowns

CMFP.L vs. CXAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMFP.L drawdown since its inception was -50.47%, which is greater than CXAP.L's maximum drawdown of -31.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMFP.L and CXAP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CMFP.LCXAP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-50.47%

-31.30%

-19.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.63%

-5.75%

-0.88%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-12.97%

-15.43%

+2.46%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-23.51%

-21.53%

-1.98%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-23.95%

-31.30%

+7.35%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.64%

-1.52%

-2.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-24.51%

-8.23%

-16.28%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.71%

2.22%

+0.49%

Volatility

CMFP.L vs. CXAP.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) has a higher volatility of 4.82% compared to UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CXAP.L) at 4.37%. This indicates that CMFP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CXAP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CMFP.LCXAP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.82%

4.37%

+0.45%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.18%

12.75%

-0.57%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.73%

15.59%

-0.86%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.86%

16.18%

-1.32%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

13.92%

16.05%

-2.13%

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

CMFP.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CXAP.L's 0.34% expense ratio.


Dividends

CMFP.L vs. CXAP.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.91, CMFP.L and CXAP.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

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 0.34% for CXAP.L.

CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward, while CXAP.L tracks UBS CMCI Ex Agriculture Ex Livestock Capped. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CMFP.L and 0.34% for CXAP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CMFP.L and CXAP.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