CMOD.L vs. SGLN.L
CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) and SGLN.L (iShares Physical Gold ETC) are both exchange-traded funds - CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while SGLN.L is a Gold fund tracking the LBMA Gold Price. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMOD.L returned 10.88%/yr vs 18.86%/yr for SGLN.L. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMOD.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.12%/yr for SGLN.L.
Performance
CMOD.L vs. SGLN.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CMOD.L is traded in USD, while SGLN.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the SGLN.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 24.60% return, which is significantly higher than SGLN.L's 3.64% 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*
- —
SGLN.L
- 1D
- 0.75%
- 1M
- -2.20%
- YTD
- 3.64%
- 6M
- 6.20%
- 1Y
- 32.48%
- 3Y*
- 31.47%
- 5Y*
- 18.86%
- 10Y*
- 13.44%
CMOD.L vs. SGLN.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% | 0.08% |
SGLN.L iShares Physical Gold ETC | 3.64% | 65.25% | 26.06% | 12.89% | -0.12% | -3.46% | 23.28% | 19.23% | -1.55% | 8.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMOD.L and SGLN.L is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.39 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.36 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2017 | 0.31 |
The correlation between CMOD.L and SGLN.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.28 (1 year) to 0.39 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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. SGLN.L — Risk / Return Rank
CMOD.L
SGLN.L
CMOD.L vs. SGLN.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 Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.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 | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.88 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.97 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.41 | 1.25 | +0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.10 | 1.85 | +3.25 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.82 | 4.74 | +7.08 |
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 | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.21 | 1.33 | +0.88 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.66 | 1.08 | -0.42 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.85 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.47 | 0.46 | +0.01 |
Drawdowns
CMOD.L vs. SGLN.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMOD.L drawdown since its inception was -33.16%, smaller than the maximum SGLN.L drawdown of -45.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOD.L and SGLN.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMOD.L | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.16% | -45.21% | +12.05% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.30% | -17.50% | +10.20% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -11.66% | -17.50% | +5.84% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -26.86% | -21.27% | -5.59% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -21.27% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.50% | -15.90% | +10.40% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.29% | -19.80% | +7.51% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.15% | 6.83% | -3.68% |
Volatility
CMOD.L vs. SGLN.L - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) and iShares Physical Gold ETC (SGLN.L) have volatilities of 5.58% and 5.74%, 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 charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMOD.L | SGLN.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.58% | 5.74% | -0.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.96% | 21.04% | -6.08% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.80% | 24.26% | -7.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.57% | 17.52% | -0.95% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 14.69% | 15.86% | -1.17% |
CMOD.L vs. SGLN.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMOD.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than SGLN.L's 0.12% 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. SGLN.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CMOD.L nor SGLN.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CMOD.L and SGLN.L have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SGLN.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SGLN.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOD.L.
CMOD.L is categorized as Commodities, while SGLN.L is Gold. CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while SGLN.L tracks LBMA Gold Price. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOD.L and 0.12% for SGLN.L.
Find the right allocation for CMOD.L and SGLN.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