PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CMOD.L vs. X7PP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CMOD.L vs. X7PP.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 European Banks Sector UCITS ETF (X7PP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CMOD.L is traded in USD, while X7PP.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the X7PP.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 X7PP.L's 4.95% 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*

X7PP.L

1D
0.49%
1M
5.45%
YTD
4.95%
6M
12.43%
1Y
41.85%
3Y*
46.54%
5Y*
26.10%
10Y*
14.08%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CMOD.L vs. X7PP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
X7PP.L
Invesco European Banks Sector UCITS ETF
4.95%101.94%24.95%29.78%-5.30%27.99%-16.01%12.68%-29.67%23.76%

Correlation

The correlation between CMOD.L and X7PP.L is -0.18, 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

-0.18

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.08

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.15

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2017

0.21

The correlation between CMOD.L and X7PP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to 0.21 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CMOD.L vs. X7PP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CMOD.L
X7PP.L

Basic Materials

35.8%

-

Financial Services

17.8%
100.0%

Consumer Cyclical

12.9%

-

Communication Services

12.3%

-

Consumer Defensive

9.7%

-

Real Estate

5.8%

-

Technology

5.6%

-

Energy

-

-

Healthcare

-

-

Industrials

-

-

Utilities

-

-

Basic Materials

CMOD.L
35.8%
X7PP.L

-

Financial Services

CMOD.L
17.8%
X7PP.L
100.0%

Consumer Cyclical

CMOD.L
12.9%
X7PP.L

-

Communication Services

CMOD.L
12.3%
X7PP.L

-

Consumer Defensive

CMOD.L
9.7%
X7PP.L

-

Real Estate

CMOD.L
5.8%
X7PP.L

-

Technology

CMOD.L
5.6%
X7PP.L

-

Energy

CMOD.L

-

X7PP.L

-

Healthcare

CMOD.L

-

X7PP.L

-

Industrials

CMOD.L

-

X7PP.L

-

Utilities

CMOD.L

-

X7PP.L

-

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. X7PP.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: 7070
Overall Rank
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank

X7PP.L
X7PP.L Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
X7PP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
X7PP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
X7PP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5454
Omega Ratio Rank
X7PP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
X7PP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5454
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. X7PP.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 European Banks Sector UCITS ETF (X7PP.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.LX7PP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.46

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.33

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.41

1.30

+0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.10

2.30

+2.80

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.82

7.31

+4.51

CMOD.L vs. X7PP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is comparable to the X7PP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMOD.L and X7PP.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CMOD.LX7PP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.21

1.76

+0.46

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.66

0.99

-0.33

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.51

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.47

0.30

+0.17

Drawdowns

CMOD.L vs. X7PP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMOD.L drawdown since its inception was -33.16%, smaller than the maximum X7PP.L drawdown of -62.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOD.L and X7PP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CMOD.LX7PP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-33.16%

-62.74%

+29.58%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.30%

-18.12%

+10.82%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-11.66%

-19.96%

+8.30%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.86%

-38.99%

+12.13%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.02%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-5.50%

-3.60%

-1.90%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.29%

-22.28%

+9.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.15%

5.71%

-2.56%

Volatility

CMOD.L vs. X7PP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) is 5.58%, while Invesco European Banks Sector UCITS ETF (X7PP.L) has a volatility of 6.89%. This indicates that CMOD.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than X7PP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CMOD.LX7PP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.58%

6.89%

-1.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.96%

19.40%

-4.44%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.80%

23.72%

-6.92%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.57%

26.33%

-9.76%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.69%

27.41%

-12.72%

CMOD.L vs. X7PP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMOD.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than X7PP.L's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, 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. X7PP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CMOD.L nor X7PP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CMOD.L and X7PP.L have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, CMOD.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CMOD.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for X7PP.L.

CMOD.L is categorized as Commodities, while X7PP.L is Financials Equities. CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index, while X7PP.L tracks MSCI World/Financials NR USD. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOD.L and 0.20% for X7PP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CMOD.L and X7PP.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