CMOP.L vs. QLD

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) and QLD (ProShares Ultra QQQ) are both exchange-traded funds - CMOP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity, while QLD is a Leveraged Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMOP.L returned 12.08%/yr vs 26.86%/yr for QLD. At a 0.07 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMOP.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for QLD.

Performance

CMOP.L vs. QLD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) and ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CMOP.L is traded in GBp, while QLD is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the QLD values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CMOP.L achieves a 24.84% return, which is significantly lower than QLD's 41.23% 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*: —

QLD

• 1D: -0.98%
• 1M: 18.41%
• YTD: 41.23%
• 6M: 35.48%
• 1Y: 84.50%
• 3Y*: 45.84%
• 5Y*: 26.86%
• 10Y*: 36.89%

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

CMOP.L vs. QLD - 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%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	41.23%	21.07%	45.31%	106.84%	-55.83%	56.13%	83.35%	74.78%	-2.87%	26.37%

Correlation

The correlation between CMOP.L and QLD is -0.06, 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	-0.06
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.01
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.03
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2017	0.07

The correlation between CMOP.L and QLD shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.07 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CMOP.L vs. QLD - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CMOP.L	QLD
Basic Materials	35.8%	1.1%
Financial Services	17.8%	0.2%
Consumer Cyclical	12.9%	12.3%
Communication Services	12.3%	15.8%
Consumer Defensive	9.7%	7.7%
Real Estate	5.8%	0.1%
Technology	5.6%	53.8%
Energy	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	4.2%
Industrials	-	2.8%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

CMOP.L vs. QLD — 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

QLD

QLD Risk / Return Rank: 70
QLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
QLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
QLD Omega Ratio Rank: 68
QLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
QLD 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. QLD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) and ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD). 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	QLD	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.10	2.79	-0.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.58	3.22	-0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.43	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.07	3.39	+1.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.63	10.65	+0.98
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. QLD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is comparable to the QLD Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMOP.L and QLD, 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	QLD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.10	2.79	-0.68
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.73	0.63	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.85	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	0.65	-0.22

Drawdowns

CMOP.L vs. QLD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMOP.L drawdown since its inception was -28.78%, smaller than the maximum QLD drawdown of -74.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOP.L and QLD.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMOP.L	QLD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-28.78%	-74.89%	+46.11%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.63%	-25.06%	+17.43%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.89%	-42.69%	+27.80%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.78%	-59.37%	+30.59%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-59.37%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.98%	-1.15%	-3.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.18%	-15.30%	+3.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.34%	7.96%	-4.62%

Volatility

CMOP.L vs. QLD - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) is 6.19%, while ProShares Ultra QQQ (QLD) has a volatility of 8.20%. This indicates that CMOP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QLD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMOP.L	QLD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.19%	8.20%	-2.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.17%	22.40%	-6.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.42%	30.48%	-12.06%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.59%	42.61%	-26.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.15%	43.49%	-28.34%

CMOP.L vs. QLD - Expense Ratio Comparison

CMOP.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is lower than QLD's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CMOP.L vs. QLD - Dividend Comparison

CMOP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while QLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.12%.

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%
QLD ProShares Ultra QQQ	0.12%	0.17%	0.25%	0.33%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.13%	0.06%	0.02%	0.21%	0.11%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CMOP.L and QLD have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CMOP.L or QLD?

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 QLD?

CMOP.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for QLD.

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

CMOP.L is categorized as Commodities, while QLD is Leveraged Equities. CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity, while QLD tracks NASDAQ-100 Index (200%). They also come from different issuers: Invesco and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOP.L and 0.95% for QLD.