CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) and BCOM.L (L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF - USD Accumulating ETF) are both Commodities funds - CMOD.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index while BCOM.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMOD.L returned 10.03%/yr vs 10.51%/yr for BCOM.L. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CMOD.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for BCOM.L.

Performance

CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF - USD Accumulating ETF (BCOM.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CMOD.L having a 20.12% return and BCOM.L slightly higher at 20.90%.

CMOD.L

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 1.48%
• 6M: 15.29%
• YTD: 20.12%
• 1Y: 29.88%
• 3Y*: 12.27%
• 5Y*: 10.03%
• 10Y*: —

BCOM.L

• 1D: 0.64%
• 1M: 2.17%
• 6M: 16.01%
• YTD: 20.90%
• 1Y: 30.69%
• 3Y*: 12.81%
• 5Y*: 10.51%
• 10Y*: —

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

CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	20.12%	16.16%	4.12%	-7.56%	14.50%	27.35%	-3.87%	6.64%	-10.22%	7.04%
BCOM.L L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF - USD Accumulating ETF	20.90%	16.19%	4.43%	-7.25%	15.63%	27.35%	-2.99%	5.14%	-9.87%	6.89%

Correlation

The correlation between CMOD.L and BCOM.L is 0.99 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.99
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.97
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 6, 2017	0.89

The correlation between CMOD.L and BCOM.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.99 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CMOD.L

CMOD.L Risk / Return Rank: 58
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 66
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 49

BCOM.L

BCOM.L Risk / Return Rank: 59
BCOM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
BCOM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
BCOM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 66
BCOM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
BCOM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 49

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.

CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF - USD Accumulating ETF (BCOM.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CMOD.L	BCOM.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	1.78	-0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	2.33	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.32	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	2.10	-0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.61	6.65	-0.04

CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is comparable to the BCOM.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMOD.L and BCOM.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.

Drawdowns

CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMOD.L drawdown since its inception was -33.16%, roughly equal to the maximum BCOM.L drawdown of -31.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOD.L and BCOM.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMOD.L	BCOM.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.16%	-31.65%	-1.51%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.44%	-14.33%	-0.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.44%	-14.33%	-0.11%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.86%	-26.27%	-0.59%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.91%	-8.29%	-0.62%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.24%	-11.63%	-0.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.51%	4.53%	-0.02%

Volatility

CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF - USD Accumulating ETF (BCOM.L) have volatilities of 4.66% and 4.53%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMOD.L	BCOM.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.66%	4.53%	+0.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.08%	14.82%	+0.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.03%	16.93%	+0.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.57%	16.81%	-0.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.69%	15.35%	-0.66%

CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMOD.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than BCOM.L's 0.15% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

CMOD.L vs. BCOM.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CMOD.L nor BCOM.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CMOD.L and BCOM.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.99, CMOD.L and BCOM.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.

Which ETF is better, CMOD.L or BCOM.L?

On fees, BCOM.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CMOD.L or BCOM.L?

BCOM.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOD.L.

What is the main difference between CMOD.L and BCOM.L?

CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while BCOM.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and L&G. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOD.L and 0.15% for BCOM.L.