CMOD.L vs. FWRA.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) and FWRA.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation) are both exchange-traded funds - CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while FWRA.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CMOD.L returned 37.37% vs 28.82% for FWRA.L. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMOD.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for FWRA.L.

Performance

CMOD.L vs. FWRA.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 FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMOD.L achieves a 24.60% return, which is significantly higher than FWRA.L's 11.59% return.

CMOD.L

• 1D: -1.40%
• 1M: -3.78%
• YTD: 24.60%
• 6M: 24.00%
• 1Y: 37.37%
• 3Y*: 15.36%
• 5Y*: 10.88%
• 10Y*: —

FWRA.L

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: 4.28%
• YTD: 11.59%
• 6M: 13.01%
• 1Y: 28.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	24.60%	16.16%	4.13%	1.90%
FWRA.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation	11.59%	22.37%	18.07%	9.23%

Correlation

The correlation between CMOD.L and FWRA.L is -0.12, 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	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023	0.12

The correlation between CMOD.L and FWRA.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.12 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CMOD.L vs. FWRA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CMOD.L	FWRA.L
Basic Materials	35.8%	3.9%
Financial Services	17.8%	16.4%
Consumer Cyclical	12.9%	9.4%
Communication Services	12.3%	8.9%
Consumer Defensive	9.7%	5.0%
Real Estate	5.8%	1.9%
Technology	5.6%	29.1%
Energy	-	4.3%
Healthcare	-	7.6%
Industrials	-	11.0%
Utilities	-	2.6%

Return for Risk

CMOD.L vs. FWRA.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: 70
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 69
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 66

FWRA.L

FWRA.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
FWRA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
FWRA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 73
FWRA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
FWRA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. FWRA.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 FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.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.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	2.32	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.75	3.44	-0.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.43	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.10	3.27	+1.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.82	13.70	-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. FWRA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is comparable to the FWRA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMOD.L and FWRA.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

	CMOD.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.21	2.32	-0.10
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.47	1.56	-1.09

Drawdowns

CMOD.L vs. FWRA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMOD.L drawdown since its inception was -33.16%, which is greater than FWRA.L's maximum drawdown of -16.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOD.L and FWRA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMOD.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.16%	-16.60%	-16.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.30%	-8.74%	+1.44%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.66%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.50%	-0.77%	-4.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.29%	-1.93%	-10.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.15%	2.09%	+1.06%

Volatility

CMOD.L vs. FWRA.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) has a higher volatility of 5.58% compared to Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Accumulation (FWRA.L) at 3.80%. This indicates that CMOD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FWRA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMOD.L	FWRA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.58%	3.80%	+1.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.96%	9.86%	+5.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.80%	12.32%	+4.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.57%	13.52%	+3.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.69%	13.52%	+1.17%

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

CMOD.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than FWRA.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. FWRA.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CMOD.L and FWRA.L have a correlation of -0.12, 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 FWRA.L?

On fees, FWRA.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 FWRA.L?

FWRA.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 FWRA.L?

CMOD.L is categorized as Commodities, while FWRA.L is Global Equities. CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while FWRA.L tracks FTSE All-World Index. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOD.L and 0.15% for FWRA.L.