CMOP.L vs. UBTS.L

Last updated Jun 14, 2026

CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) and UBTS.L (UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg TIPS 1-10 UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) are both exchange-traded funds - CMOP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity, while UBTS.L is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg Gbl Infl Linked US TIPS TR USD. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CMOP.L returned 10.87%/yr vs 3.21%/yr for UBTS.L. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CMOP.L charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for UBTS.L.

Performance

CMOP.L vs. UBTS.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 UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg TIPS 1-10 UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UBTS.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 19.51% return, which is significantly higher than UBTS.L's 1.63% return.

CMOP.L

• 1D: -1.53%
• 1M: -7.51%
• YTD: 19.51%
• 6M: 20.29%
• 1Y: 29.45%
• 3Y*: 11.03%
• 5Y*: 10.87%
• 10Y*: —

UBTS.L

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: -0.11%
• YTD: 1.63%
• 6M: 1.00%
• 1Y: 6.12%
• 3Y*: 2.62%
• 5Y*: 3.21%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	19.51%	8.23%	6.01%	-12.72%	28.44%	28.71%	-7.11%	1.37%	-3.26%	-24.46%
UBTS.L UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg TIPS 1-10 UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	1.63%	-0.11%	4.94%	-1.60%	3.40%	6.97%	4.62%	3.52%	5.25%	-7.57%

Correlation

The correlation between CMOP.L and UBTS.L is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.32
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.27
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 9, 2017	0.30

Return for Risk

CMOP.L vs. UBTS.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: 59
CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
CMOP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
CMOP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 58
CMOP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
CMOP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 57

UBTS.L

UBTS.L Risk / Return Rank: 27
UBTS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
UBTS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
UBTS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 27
UBTS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
UBTS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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. UBTS.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 UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg TIPS 1-10 UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UBTS.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CMOP.L	UBTS.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.68	0.93	+0.74
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.12	1.36	+0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.16	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.46	1.18	+2.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.86	3.14	+5.72

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

The current CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.68, which is higher than the UBTS.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CMOP.L and UBTS.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.

Drawdowns

CMOP.L vs. UBTS.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CMOP.L drawdown since its inception was -44.21%, which is greater than UBTS.L's maximum drawdown of -30.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CMOP.L and UBTS.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CMOP.L	UBTS.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.21%	-30.43%	-13.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.03%	-4.97%	-4.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.87%	-7.52%	-19.35%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.78%	-16.00%	-12.78%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.03%	-5.92%	-3.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.89%	-14.03%	-7.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.53%	1.88%	+1.65%

Volatility

CMOP.L vs. UBTS.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) has a higher volatility of 4.89% compared to UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg TIPS 1-10 UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UBTS.L) at 1.63%. This indicates that CMOP.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than UBTS.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CMOP.L	UBTS.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.89%	1.63%	+3.26%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.30%	4.57%	+11.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.62%	6.31%	+12.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.30%	8.16%	+13.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.02%	10.65%	+8.37%

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

CMOP.L has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than UBTS.L's 0.15% 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

CMOP.L vs. UBTS.L - Dividend Comparison

CMOP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UBTS.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.02%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
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%
UBTS.L UBS ETF (LU) Bloomberg TIPS 1-10 UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	4.02%	3.26%	4.41%	4.56%	6.66%	2.83%	0.84%	2.30%	2.38%	1.27%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

CMOP.L and UBTS.L have a correlation of 0.37, 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 UBTS.L?

On fees, UBTS.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

UBTS.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOP.L.

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

CMOP.L is categorized as Commodities, while UBTS.L is Inflation-Protected Bonds. CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity, while UBTS.L tracks Bloomberg Gbl Infl Linked US TIPS TR USD. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for CMOP.L and 0.15% for UBTS.L.