PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CMOD.L vs. EQGB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

CMOD.L vs. EQGB.L

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L).

CMOD.L and EQGB.L are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CMOD.L is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. It was launched on Aug 17, 2018. EQGB.L is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the NASDAQ-100 Index. It was launched on Oct 17, 2017. Both CMOD.L and EQGB.L are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.

Performance

CMOD.L vs. EQGB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CMOD.L
Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF		22.87%16.16%4.13%-7.56%14.50%27.35%-3.87%6.64%-10.22%3.12%
EQGB.L
Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc		-7.37%28.61%24.02%62.04%-42.01%26.53%49.89%40.34%-8.11%7.88%
Different Trading Currencies

CMOD.L is traded in USD, while EQGB.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the EQGB.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMOD.L achieves a 22.87% return, which is significantly higher than EQGB.L's -6.46% return.

CMOD.L

1D
-1.22%
1M
7.30%
YTD
22.87%
6M
30.19%
1Y
30.47%
3Y*
13.29%
5Y*
13.32%
10Y*
—

EQGB.L

1D
0.00%
1M
-2.46%
YTD
-6.46%
6M
-4.02%
1Y
25.98%
3Y*
25.36%
5Y*
11.07%
10Y*
—
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF

Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc

Often compared with CMOD.L:
CMOD.L vs. SXRS.DECMOD.L vs. CMOP.LCMOD.L vs. CMOE.DECMOD.L vs. AIGC.LCMOD.L vs. BCFE.DECMOD.L vs. ETL2.DECMOD.L vs. PCOM.DE
Often compared with EQGB.L:
EQGB.L vs. EQQQ.LEQGB.L vs. CNX1.LEQGB.L vs. VWRP.LEQGB.L vs. QQQEQGB.L vs. XNAQ.LEQGB.L vs. WLDS.LEQGB.L vs. INTL.L

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

CMOD.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than EQGB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

EQGB.L
Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc
CMOD.L
Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF

Return for Risk

CMOD.L vs. EQGB.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: 8787
Overall Rank
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
Martin Ratio Rank
EQGB.L
EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6262
Sortino Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7878
Calmar Ratio Rank
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
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. EQGB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.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.

CMOD.LEQGB.LDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.87

1.13

+0.75

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.46

1.72

+0.73

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.22

+0.13

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

4.18

2.06

+2.12

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

9.82

7.93

+1.88

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is higher than the EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMOD.L and EQGB.L, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period

CMOD.LEQGB.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.87

1.13

+0.75

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.82

0.45

+0.37

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.47

0.67

-0.20

Correlation

The correlation between CMOD.L and EQGB.L is 0.26, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

CMOD.L vs. EQGB.L - Dividend Comparison

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

TTM2025202420232022202120202019
CMOD.L
Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
EQGB.L
Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc		0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.04%

Drawdowns

CMOD.L vs. EQGB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMOD.L drawdown since its inception was -33.16%, smaller than the maximum EQGB.L drawdown of -47.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOD.L and EQGB.L.

Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators

CMOD.LEQGB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.16%

-36.77%

+3.61%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.95%

-11.33%

+2.38%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.86%

-36.77%

+9.91%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.22%

-8.28%

+7.06%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.47%

-7.64%

-4.83%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.10%

3.10%

0.00%

Volatility

CMOD.L vs. EQGB.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) have volatilities of 7.20% and 7.08%, 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.

Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period

CMOD.LEQGB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.20%

7.08%

+0.12%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

13.04%

13.75%

-0.71%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.22%

22.98%

-6.76%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.31%

24.73%

-8.42%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.53%

24.85%

-10.32%