CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.L
CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) and EQQQ.L (Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CMOP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity, while EQQQ.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMOP.L returned 12.08%/yr vs 18.87%/yr for EQQQ.L. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMOP.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for EQQQ.L.
Performance
CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CMOP.L achieves a 24.84% return, which is significantly higher than EQQQ.L's 19.86% 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*
- —
EQQQ.L
- 1D
- -0.63%
- 1M
- 9.63%
- YTD
- 19.86%
- 6M
- 18.38%
- 1Y
- 41.62%
- 3Y*
- 24.65%
- 5Y*
- 18.87%
- 10Y*
- 22.47%
CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.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% |
EQQQ.L Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF | 19.86% | 11.54% | 28.55% | 47.79% | -25.54% | 29.59% | 43.32% | 33.69% | 4.64% | 9.78% |
Correlation
The correlation between CMOP.L and EQQQ.L is -0.05, 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 | -0.05 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.07 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2017 | 0.17 |
The correlation between CMOP.L and EQQQ.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.17 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CMOP.L
EQQQ.L
Basic Materials
Financial Services
Consumer Cyclical
Communication Services
Consumer Defensive
Real Estate
Technology
Energy
-
Healthcare
-
Industrials
-
Utilities
-
Basic Materials
CMOP.L
EQQQ.L
Financial Services
CMOP.L
EQQQ.L
Consumer Cyclical
CMOP.L
EQQQ.L
Communication Services
CMOP.L
EQQQ.L
Consumer Defensive
CMOP.L
EQQQ.L
Real Estate
CMOP.L
EQQQ.L
Technology
CMOP.L
EQQQ.L
Energy
CMOP.L
-
EQQQ.L
Healthcare
CMOP.L
-
EQQQ.L
Industrials
CMOP.L
-
EQQQ.L
Utilities
CMOP.L
-
EQQQ.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
CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.L — Risk / Return Rank
CMOP.L
EQQQ.L
CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.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 Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF (EQQQ.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 | EQQQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.71 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.13 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.50 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.07 | 3.78 | +1.30 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 11.63 | 11.13 | +0.50 |
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
| CMOP.L | EQQQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.10 | 2.82 | -0.71 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.73 | 0.99 | -0.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 1.16 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.43 | 0.92 | -0.49 |
Drawdowns
CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CMOP.L drawdown since its inception was -28.78%, smaller than the maximum EQQQ.L drawdown of -33.75%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOP.L and EQQQ.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CMOP.L | EQQQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.78% | -33.75% | +4.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.63% | -10.97% | +3.34% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -14.89% | -24.09% | +9.20% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.78% | -27.76% | -1.02% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -27.76% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.98% | -0.63% | -4.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -12.18% | -5.61% | -6.57% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.34% | 3.73% | -0.39% |
Volatility
CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.L - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) has a higher volatility of 6.19% compared to Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF (EQQQ.L) at 4.15%. This indicates that CMOP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EQQQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CMOP.L | EQQQ.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.19% | 4.15% | +2.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.17% | 10.33% | +5.84% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.42% | 14.70% | +3.72% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.59% | 19.14% | -2.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.15% | 19.35% | -4.20% |
CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CMOP.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than EQQQ.L's 0.30% expense ratio.
Dividends
CMOP.L vs. EQQQ.L - Dividend Comparison
CMOP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EQQQ.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EQQQ.L Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF | 0.23% | 0.29% | 0.38% | 0.39% | 0.56% | 0.25% | 0.41% | 0.56% | 0.63% | 0.67% | 0.77% | 0.72% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CMOP.L and EQQQ.L have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
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.
CMOP.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for EQQQ.L.
CMOP.L is categorized as Commodities, while EQQQ.L is Nasdaq-100. CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity, while EQQQ.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOP.L and 0.30% for EQQQ.L.
Find the right allocation for CMOP.L and EQQQ.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