CMOD.L vs. IBTA.L
CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) and IBTA.L (iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while IBTA.L is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE US Treasury 1-3 Year Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMOD.L returned 10.88%/yr vs 1.87%/yr for IBTA.L. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. CMOD.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTA.L.
Performance
CMOD.L vs. IBTA.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMOD.L achieves a 24.60% return, which is significantly higher than IBTA.L's 0.46% 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*
- —
IBTA.L
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- 0.13%
- YTD
- 0.46%
- 6M
- 0.92%
- 1Y
- 3.43%
- 3Y*
- 4.23%
- 5Y*
- 1.87%
- 10Y*
- —
CMOD.L vs. IBTA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF | 24.60% | 16.16% | 4.13% | -7.56% | 14.50% | 27.35% | -3.87% | 6.64% | -10.22% | 2.11% |
IBTA.L iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) | 0.46% | 5.30% | 4.11% | 4.15% | -3.75% | -0.64% | 3.14% | 3.58% | 1.44% | -0.05% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMOD.L and IBTA.L is -0.26, 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 | -0.26 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.06 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2017 | -0.03 |
Over the past year, the inverse relationship between CMOD.L and IBTA.L has strengthened: their correlation has moved from -0.03 to -0.26, meaning they now move in opposite directions more often than their long-term average.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CMOD.L vs. IBTA.L — Risk / Return Rank
CMOD.L
IBTA.L
CMOD.L vs. IBTA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (IBTA.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 | IBTA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.59 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.86 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | 1.59 | -0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.10 | 4.62 | +0.48 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.82 | 17.47 | -5.65 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CMOD.L | IBTA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.21 | 2.80 | -0.59 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.66 | 0.93 | -0.28 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.47 | 1.08 | -0.61 |
Drawdowns
CMOD.L vs. IBTA.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMOD.L drawdown since its inception was -33.16%, which is greater than IBTA.L's maximum drawdown of -5.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOD.L and IBTA.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMOD.L | IBTA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.16% | -5.80% | -27.36% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.30% | -0.74% | -6.56% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.66% | -0.89% | -10.77% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.86% | -5.70% | -21.16% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.50% | -0.13% | -5.37% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.29% | -0.97% | -11.32% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.15% | 0.20% | +2.95% |
Volatility
CMOD.L vs. IBTA.L - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) has a higher volatility of 5.58% compared to iShares USD Treasury Bond 1-3yr UCITS ETF (Acc) (IBTA.L) at 0.43%. This indicates that CMOD.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBTA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMOD.L | IBTA.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.58% | 0.43% | +5.15% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.96% | 0.86% | +14.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.80% | 1.23% | +15.57% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.57% | 2.00% | +14.57% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.69% | 1.76% | +12.93% |
CMOD.L vs. IBTA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMOD.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTA.L's 0.07% 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. IBTA.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CMOD.L nor IBTA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CMOD.L and IBTA.L have a correlation of -0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBTA.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBTA.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOD.L.
CMOD.L is categorized as Commodities, while IBTA.L is Government Bonds. CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while IBTA.L tracks ICE US Treasury 1-3 Year Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOD.L and 0.07% for IBTA.L.
Find the right allocation for CMOD.L and IBTA.L
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer