CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) and CMFP.L (L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF) are both Commodities funds - CMOP.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity while CMFP.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMOP.L returned 12.08%/yr vs 13.29%/yr for CMFP.L. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. CMOP.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for CMFP.L.

Performance

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) and L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMOP.L achieves a 24.84% return, which is significantly higher than CMFP.L's 19.16% return.

CMOP.L

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: -2.74%
• YTD: 24.84%
• 6M: 23.47%
• 1Y: 38.91%
• 3Y*: 12.42%
• 5Y*: 12.08%
• 10Y*: —

CMFP.L

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: -1.18%
• YTD: 19.16%
• 6M: 18.60%
• 1Y: 32.00%
• 3Y*: 10.92%
• 5Y*: 13.29%
• 10Y*: 9.22%

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

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	24.84%	8.23%	6.01%	-12.72%	28.44%	28.71%	-7.11%	3.31%	-5.01%	-5.69%
CMFP.L L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF	19.16%	8.49%	6.86%	-11.43%	32.79%	34.61%	-0.92%	3.99%	-3.16%	-4.78%

Correlation

The correlation between CMOP.L and CMFP.L is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.96
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2017	0.96

The correlation between CMOP.L and CMFP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CMOP.L	CMFP.L
Basic Materials	35.8%	49.3%
Financial Services	17.8%	10.7%
Consumer Cyclical	12.9%	8.3%
Communication Services	12.3%	7.6%
Consumer Defensive	9.7%	13.6%
Real Estate	5.8%	5.5%
Technology	5.6%	5.1%
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CMOP.L

CMOP.L Risk / Return Rank: 67
CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
CMOP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
CMOP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CMOP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CMOP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

CMFP.L

CMFP.L Risk / Return Rank: 69
CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CMFP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CMFP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CMFP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
CMFP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) and L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.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.

	CMOP.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.10	2.16	-0.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.58	2.76	-0.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.39	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.07	4.81	+0.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.63	11.77	-0.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is comparable to the CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMOP.L and CMFP.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

	CMOP.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.10	2.16	-0.06
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73	0.89	-0.17
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	0.27	+0.16

Drawdowns

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMOP.L drawdown since its inception was -28.78%, smaller than the maximum CMFP.L drawdown of -50.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOP.L and CMFP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMOP.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.78%	-50.47%	+21.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.63%	-6.63%	-1.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.89%	-12.97%	-1.92%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.78%	-23.51%	-5.27%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-23.95%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.98%	-3.64%	-1.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.18%	-24.51%	+12.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.34%	2.71%	+0.63%

Volatility

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) has a higher volatility of 6.19% compared to L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) at 4.82%. This indicates that CMOP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMFP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMOP.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.19%	4.82%	+1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.17%	12.18%	+3.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.42%	14.73%	+3.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.59%	14.86%	+1.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.15%	13.92%	+1.23%

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMOP.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than CMFP.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMOP.L vs. CMFP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CMOP.L nor CMFP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CMOP.L and CMFP.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, CMOP.L and CMFP.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, CMOP.L or CMFP.L?

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

Which ETF is cheaper, CMOP.L or CMFP.L?

CMOP.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for CMFP.L.

What is the main difference between CMOP.L and CMFP.L?

CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity, while CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Legal & General. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOP.L and 0.30% for CMFP.L.