CMFP.L vs. GLGG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CMFP.L (L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF) and GLGG.L (L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMFP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward, while GLGG.L is a Water Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Water TR. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMFP.L returned 13.29%/yr vs 6.66%/yr for GLGG.L. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMFP.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for GLGG.L.

Performance

CMFP.L vs. GLGG.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 L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMFP.L achieves a 19.16% return, which is significantly higher than GLGG.L's 2.12% 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%

GLGG.L

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -0.96%
• YTD: 2.12%
• 6M: 1.19%
• 1Y: 9.96%
• 3Y*: 8.33%
• 5Y*: 6.66%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CMFP.L L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF	19.16%	8.49%	6.86%	-11.43%	32.79%	34.61%	-0.92%	-3.69%
GLGG.L L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF	2.12%	7.81%	5.74%	14.58%	-7.49%	27.84%	14.27%	4.99%

Correlation

The correlation between CMFP.L and GLGG.L is -0.19, 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	-0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.02
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 17, 2019	0.14

The correlation between CMFP.L and GLGG.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to 0.14 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	CMFP.L	GLGG.L
Basic Materials	49.3%	9.0%
Consumer Defensive	13.6%	1.7%
Financial Services	10.7%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	-
Communication Services	7.6%	-
Real Estate	5.5%	-
Technology	5.1%	6.4%
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	1.9%
Industrials	-	65.2%
Utilities	-	15.8%

Return for Risk

CMFP.L vs. GLGG.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: 69
CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CMFP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CMFP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CMFP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
CMFP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

GLGG.L

GLGG.L Risk / Return Rank: 21
GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
GLGG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
GLGG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 21
GLGG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
GLGG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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. GLGG.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 Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.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	GLGG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.16	0.72	+1.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.76	1.07	+1.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.13	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	0.85	+3.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.77	2.15	+9.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is higher than the GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMFP.L and GLGG.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

	CMFP.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.16	0.72	+1.44
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89	0.44	+0.45
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.27	0.58	-0.32

Drawdowns

CMFP.L vs. GLGG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMFP.L drawdown since its inception was -50.47%, which is greater than GLGG.L's maximum drawdown of -27.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMFP.L and GLGG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMFP.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.47%	-27.08%	-23.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.63%	-11.62%	+4.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.97%	-16.35%	+3.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.51%	-18.82%	-4.69%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-23.95%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.64%	-8.46%	+4.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.51%	-5.14%	-19.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.71%	4.63%	-1.92%

Volatility

CMFP.L vs. GLGG.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) has a higher volatility of 4.82% compared to L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L) at 4.33%. This indicates that CMFP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GLGG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMFP.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.82%	4.33%	+0.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.18%	11.10%	+1.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.73%	13.76%	+0.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.86%	15.04%	-0.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.92%	17.68%	-3.76%

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

CMFP.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than GLGG.L's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMFP.L vs. GLGG.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CMFP.L and GLGG.L in my portfolio?

CMFP.L and GLGG.L have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CMFP.L or GLGG.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, CMFP.L or GLGG.L?

CMFP.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for GLGG.L.

What is the main difference between CMFP.L and GLGG.L?

CMFP.L is categorized as Commodities, while GLGG.L is Water Equities. CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward, while GLGG.L tracks S&P Global Water TR. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CMFP.L and 0.49% for GLGG.L.