CMFP.L vs. TDGB.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CMFP.L (L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF) and TDGB.L (VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMFP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward, while TDGB.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the Morningstar Developed Markets Large Cap Dividend Leaders Screened Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMFP.L returned 13.29%/yr vs 17.70%/yr for TDGB.L. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMFP.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for TDGB.L.

Performance

CMFP.L vs. TDGB.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 VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CMFP.L is traded in GBp, while TDGB.L is traded in GBP. To make them comparable, the TDGB.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMFP.L achieves a 19.16% return, which is significantly higher than TDGB.L's 8.92% 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%

TDGB.L

• 1D: 0.48%
• 1M: 0.92%
• YTD: 8.92%
• 6M: 11.81%
• 1Y: 29.32%
• 3Y*: 20.13%
• 5Y*: 17.70%
• 10Y*: —

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

CMFP.L vs. TDGB.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%	0.86%
TDGB.L VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF	8.92%	30.88%	10.65%	9.06%	22.49%	19.59%	-5.61%	10.74%

Correlation

The correlation between CMFP.L and TDGB.L is 0.02, 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	0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.11
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 21, 2019	0.30

Over the past year, the correlation between CMFP.L and TDGB.L has dropped to 0.02 - well below their long-term average of 0.30, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

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

Sectors	CMFP.L	TDGB.L
Basic Materials	49.3%	1.2%
Consumer Defensive	13.6%	10.1%
Financial Services	10.7%	31.7%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	3.8%
Communication Services	7.6%	8.7%
Real Estate	5.5%	0.0%
Technology	5.1%	0.3%
Energy	-	19.7%
Healthcare	-	14.4%
Industrials	-	3.9%
Utilities	-	6.2%

Return for Risk

CMFP.L vs. TDGB.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

TDGB.L

TDGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 91
TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
TDGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
TDGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 91
TDGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
TDGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. TDGB.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 VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.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	TDGB.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.16	3.15	-0.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.76	4.38	-1.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.59	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.81	6.26	-1.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.77	20.72	-8.95
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. TDGB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.16, which is lower than the TDGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMFP.L and TDGB.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	TDGB.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.16	3.15	-0.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.89	1.55	-0.66
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	0.98	-0.71

Drawdowns

CMFP.L vs. TDGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMFP.L drawdown since its inception was -50.47%, which is greater than TDGB.L's maximum drawdown of -29.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMFP.L and TDGB.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMFP.L	TDGB.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-50.47%	-29.60%	-20.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.63%	-4.66%	-1.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.97%	-12.41%	-0.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.51%	-12.41%	-11.10%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-23.95%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.64%	-1.47%	-2.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-24.51%	-3.70%	-20.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.71%	1.41%	+1.30%

Volatility

CMFP.L vs. TDGB.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) has a higher volatility of 4.82% compared to VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF (TDGB.L) at 2.49%. This indicates that CMFP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TDGB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMFP.L	TDGB.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.82%	2.49%	+2.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.18%	7.01%	+5.17%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.73%	9.28%	+5.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.86%	11.42%	+3.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.92%	14.44%	-0.52%

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

CMFP.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than TDGB.L's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMFP.L vs. TDGB.L - Dividend Comparison

CMFP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TDGB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.20%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CMFP.L L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TDGB.L VanEck Morningstar Developed Markets Dividend Leaders UCITS ETF	3.20%	3.50%	4.27%	4.93%	4.40%	4.06%	4.16%	4.52%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CMFP.L and TDGB.L have a correlation of 0.02, 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 TDGB.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 TDGB.L?

CMFP.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for TDGB.L.

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

CMFP.L is categorized as Commodities, while TDGB.L is Global Equities. CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward, while TDGB.L tracks Morningstar Developed Markets Large Cap Dividend Leaders Screened Select Index. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for CMFP.L and 0.38% for TDGB.L.