CMOD.L vs. QQQ

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) and QQQ (Invesco QQQ ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while QQQ is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMOD.L returned 9.74%/yr vs 16.85%/yr for QQQ. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMOD.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for QQQ.

Performance

CMOD.L vs. QQQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ). 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 QQQ's 17.57% 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*: —

QQQ

• 1D: 0.59%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: 17.57%
• 6M: 17.85%
• 1Y: 37.55%
• 3Y*: 26.43%
• 5Y*: 16.85%
• 10Y*: 21.79%

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

CMOD.L vs. QQQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	19.22%	16.16%	4.12%	-7.56%	14.50%	27.35%	-3.87%	6.64%	-10.22%	2.08%
QQQ Invesco QQQ ETF	17.57%	20.77%	25.58%	54.86%	-32.58%	27.42%	48.62%	38.96%	-0.13%	28.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CMOD.L and QQQ is 0.00, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.00
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.05
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 9, 2017	0.10

Return for Risk

CMOD.L vs. QQQ — 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

QQQ

QQQ Risk / Return Rank: 71
QQQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
QQQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
QQQ Omega Ratio Rank: 73
QQQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
QQQ Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. QQQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ). 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	QQQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	2.09	-0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.23	2.73	-0.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.37	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.07	3.01	+0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.68	11.22	-2.55

CMOD.L vs. QQQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the QQQ Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMOD.L and QQQ, 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. QQQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMOD.L drawdown since its inception was -33.16%, smaller than the maximum QQQ drawdown of -82.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOD.L and QQQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMOD.L	QQQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.16%	-82.97%	+49.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.59%	-11.96%	+2.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.65%	-22.77%	+11.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.86%	-35.12%	+8.26%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.12%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.59%	-3.33%	-6.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.24%	-32.75%	+20.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.40%	3.20%	+0.20%

Volatility

CMOD.L vs. QQQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) is 4.36%, while Invesco QQQ ETF (QQQ) has a volatility of 7.56%. This indicates that CMOD.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMOD.L	QQQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.36%	7.56%	-3.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.04%	13.81%	+1.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.99%	17.19%	-0.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.61%	22.55%	-5.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.68%	22.38%	-7.70%

CMOD.L vs. QQQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMOD.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than QQQ's 0.18% 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. QQQ - Dividend Comparison

CMOD.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QQQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
QQQ Invesco QQQ ETF	0.39%	0.45%	0.56%	0.62%	0.80%	0.43%	0.55%	0.74%	0.91%	0.84%	1.06%	0.99%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CMOD.L and QQQ have a correlation of 0.00, 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 QQQ?

On fees, QQQ is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CMOD.L or QQQ?

QQQ is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOD.L.

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

CMOD.L is categorized as Commodities, while QQQ is Nasdaq-100. CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while QQQ tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOD.L and 0.18% for QQQ.