CMFP.L vs. CXAP.L
CMFP.L (L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF) and CXAP.L (UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc) are both Commodities funds - CMFP.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward while CXAP.L tracks the UBS CMCI Ex Agriculture Ex Livestock Capped. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CMFP.L returned 9.22%/yr vs 11.86%/yr for CXAP.L. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CMFP.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for CXAP.L.
Performance
CMFP.L vs. CXAP.L - Performance Comparison
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%
CMFP.L vs. CXAP.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% |
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
Consumer Defensive
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Real Estate
Technology
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
CMFP.L
CXAP.L
Consumer Defensive
CMFP.L
CXAP.L
Financial Services
CMFP.L
CXAP.L
Consumer Cyclical
CMFP.L
CXAP.L
Communication Services
CMFP.L
CXAP.L
Real Estate
CMFP.L
CXAP.L
Technology
CMFP.L
CXAP.L
Energy
CMFP.L
-
CXAP.L
Healthcare
CMFP.L
-
CXAP.L
Industrials
CMFP.L
-
CXAP.L
Utilities
CMFP.L
-
CXAP.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. CXAP.L — Risk / Return Rank
CMFP.L
CXAP.L
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.L | CXAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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 | CXAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
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.L | CXAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.64% | -1.52% | -2.12% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -24.51% | -8.23% | -16.28% |
Ulcer IndexDepth 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.L | CXAP.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
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.
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.
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