CNDX.L vs. CMOD.L

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

CNDX.L (iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF) and CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CNDX.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CNDX.L returned 16.76%/yr vs 10.42%/yr for CMOD.L. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CNDX.L charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOD.L.

Performance

CNDX.L vs. CMOD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CNDX.L achieves a 16.32% return, which is significantly lower than CMOD.L's 22.33% return.

CNDX.L

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 1.61%
• YTD: 16.32%
• 6M: 15.48%
• 1Y: 36.18%
• 3Y*: 27.08%
• 5Y*: 16.76%
• 10Y*: 21.32%

CMOD.L

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -3.74%
• YTD: 22.33%
• 6M: 22.42%
• 1Y: 33.62%
• 3Y*: 14.20%
• 5Y*: 10.42%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CNDX.L iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF	16.32%	19.75%	26.42%	56.22%	-33.49%	27.92%	48.25%	37.96%	-1.08%	29.47%
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	22.33%	16.16%	4.12%	-7.56%	14.50%	27.35%	-3.87%	6.64%	-10.22%	2.08%

Correlation

The correlation between CNDX.L and CMOD.L is -0.07, 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	-0.07
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 10, 2017	0.19

The correlation between CNDX.L and CMOD.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.07 (1 year) to 0.19 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	CNDX.L	CMOD.L
Technology	57.9%	5.6%
Communication Services	14.5%	12.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.6%	12.9%
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	9.7%
Healthcare	3.7%	-
Industrials	2.8%	-
Utilities	1.2%	-
Basic Materials	1.0%	35.8%
Energy	0.5%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	17.8%
Real Estate	0.1%	5.8%

Return for Risk

CNDX.L vs. CMOD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CNDX.L

CNDX.L Risk / Return Rank: 74
CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
CNDX.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
CNDX.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
CNDX.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
CNDX.L Martin Ratio Rank: 69

CMOD.L

CMOD.L Risk / Return Rank: 69
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 68
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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.

CNDX.L vs. CMOD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.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.

	CNDX.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.25	1.98	+0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	2.50	+0.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.37	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.27	4.60	-1.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.72	10.43	+1.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CNDX.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.25, which is comparable to the CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CNDX.L and CMOD.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

	CNDX.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.25	1.98	+0.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80	0.63	+0.17
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	1.06	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.03	0.47	+0.56

Drawdowns

CNDX.L vs. CMOD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CNDX.L drawdown since its inception was -35.21%, which is greater than CMOD.L's maximum drawdown of -33.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CNDX.L and CMOD.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CNDX.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.21%	-33.16%	-2.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.00%	-7.28%	-3.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.44%	-11.65%	-10.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.21%	-26.86%	-8.35%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.21%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.53%	-7.23%	+3.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.13%	-12.25%	+7.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.08%	3.21%	-0.13%

Volatility

CNDX.L vs. CMOD.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares NASDAQ 100 UCITS ETF (CNDX.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) have volatilities of 5.44% and 5.26%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CNDX.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.44%	5.26%	+0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.12%	15.05%	-2.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.04%	16.91%	-0.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.93%	16.60%	+4.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.09%	14.68%	+5.41%

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

CNDX.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than CMOD.L's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

CNDX.L vs. CMOD.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CNDX.L and CMOD.L in my portfolio?

CNDX.L and CMOD.L have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CNDX.L or CMOD.L?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, CNDX.L or CMOD.L?

CMOD.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CNDX.L.

What is the main difference between CNDX.L and CMOD.L?

CNDX.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CMOD.L is Commodities. CNDX.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CNDX.L and 0.19% for CMOD.L.