COMF.L vs. CMOD.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

COMF.L (L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF) and CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) are both Commodities funds - COMF.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity Index 3 Month Forward Total Return while CMOD.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, COMF.L returned 11.24%/yr vs 10.03%/yr for CMOD.L. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. COMF.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOD.L.

Performance

COMF.L vs. CMOD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (COMF.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, COMF.L achieves a 15.66% return, which is significantly lower than CMOD.L's 20.12% return.

COMF.L

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 1.29%
• 6M: 10.85%
• YTD: 15.66%
• 1Y: 24.69%
• 3Y*: 11.59%
• 5Y*: 11.24%
• 10Y*: 8.22%

CMOD.L

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 1.48%
• 6M: 15.29%
• YTD: 20.12%
• 1Y: 29.88%
• 3Y*: 12.27%
• 5Y*: 10.03%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
COMF.L L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF	15.66%	16.43%	5.13%	-6.37%	18.73%	32.96%	2.52%	7.36%	-8.43%	2.90%
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	20.12%	16.16%	4.12%	-7.56%	14.50%	27.35%	-3.87%	6.64%	-10.22%	2.08%

Correlation

The correlation between COMF.L and CMOD.L is 0.95, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.95
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 9, 2017	0.96

The correlation between COMF.L and CMOD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.95 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

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

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

COMF.L

COMF.L Risk / Return Rank: 58
COMF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
COMF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
COMF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 66
COMF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
COMF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 48

CMOD.L

CMOD.L Risk / Return Rank: 58
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 66
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 49

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (COMF.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.

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.

	COMF.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.76	1.75	+0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.32	2.26	+0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.32	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.00	2.06	-0.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.49	6.61	-0.12

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

The current COMF.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.76, which is comparable to the CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of COMF.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.

Drawdowns

COMF.L vs. CMOD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum COMF.L drawdown since its inception was -60.21%, 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 COMF.L and CMOD.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	COMF.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.21%	-33.16%	-27.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.25%	-14.44%	+2.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.25%	-14.44%	+2.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.56%	-26.86%	+4.30%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-29.69%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.09%	-8.91%	+1.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.36%	-12.24%	-17.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.77%	4.51%	-0.74%

Volatility

COMF.L vs. CMOD.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (COMF.L) is 3.91%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) has a volatility of 4.66%. This indicates that COMF.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMOD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	COMF.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.91%	4.66%	-0.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.59%	15.08%	-3.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.87%	17.03%	-3.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.93%	16.57%	-1.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.28%	14.69%	-1.41%

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

COMF.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than CMOD.L's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

COMF.L vs. CMOD.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

With a correlation of 0.95, COMF.L and CMOD.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, COMF.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, COMF.L or CMOD.L?

CMOD.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for COMF.L.

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

COMF.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity Index 3 Month Forward Total Return, while CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. They also come from different issuers: L&G and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for COMF.L and 0.19% for CMOD.L.