CMOD.L vs. DBMF

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) and DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners. CMOD.L is passively managed, while DBMF is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMOD.L returned 9.74%/yr vs 8.01%/yr for DBMF. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMOD.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DBMF.

Performance

CMOD.L vs. DBMF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMOD.L achieves a 19.22% return, which is significantly higher than DBMF's 10.27% return.

CMOD.L

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -8.02%
• YTD: 19.22%
• 6M: 20.80%
• 1Y: 27.62%
• 3Y*: 13.33%
• 5Y*: 9.74%
• 10Y*: —

DBMF

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: -1.34%
• YTD: 10.27%
• 6M: 11.24%
• 1Y: 26.94%
• 3Y*: 9.64%
• 5Y*: 8.01%
• 10Y*: —

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

CMOD.L vs. DBMF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	19.22%	16.16%	4.12%	-7.56%	14.50%	27.35%	-3.87%	3.92%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.27%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	11.49%	1.80%	10.51%

Correlation

The correlation between CMOD.L and DBMF is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.20
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019	0.17

Over the past year, CMOD.L and DBMF have become more correlated (0.37) than their long-term average of 0.17, meaning their price movements have been converging.

CMOD.L vs. DBMF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CMOD.L	DBMF
Basic Materials	35.8%	2.2%
Financial Services	17.8%	12.5%
Consumer Cyclical	12.9%	11.0%
Communication Services	12.3%	8.6%
Consumer Defensive	9.7%	6.1%
Real Estate	5.8%	2.5%
Technology	5.6%	29.8%
Energy	-	3.9%
Healthcare	-	12.7%
Industrials	-	8.4%
Utilities	-	2.3%

Return for Risk

CMOD.L vs. DBMF — 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: 59
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 56

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 84
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 87
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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. DBMF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF). 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	DBMF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	2.22	-0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.23	2.92	-0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.47	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	4.50	-1.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.68	16.30	-7.62

CMOD.L vs. DBMF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the DBMF Sharpe Ratio of 2.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMOD.L and DBMF, 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. DBMF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMOD.L drawdown since its inception was -33.16%, which is greater than DBMF's maximum drawdown of -20.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOD.L and DBMF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMOD.L	DBMF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.16%	-20.39%	-12.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.59%	-6.10%	-3.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.65%	-15.60%	+3.95%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.86%	-20.39%	-6.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.59%	-1.91%	-7.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.24%	-6.56%	-5.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.40%	1.68%	+1.72%

Volatility

CMOD.L vs. DBMF - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) has a higher volatility of 4.36% compared to iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) at 2.71%. This indicates that CMOD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DBMF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMOD.L	DBMF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.36%	2.71%	+1.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.04%	10.00%	+5.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.99%	12.35%	+4.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.61%	12.55%	+4.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.68%	12.41%	+2.27%

CMOD.L vs. DBMF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMOD.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than DBMF's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMOD.L vs. DBMF - Dividend Comparison

CMOD.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.19%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CMOD.L and DBMF have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CMOD.L or DBMF?

On fees, CMOD.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CMOD.L or DBMF?

CMOD.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

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

CMOD.L is categorized as Commodities, while DBMF is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iM Global Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOD.L and 0.85% for DBMF.