PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CXAP.L) and iShares Physical Palladium ETC (SPDM.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CXAP.L achieves a 26.29% return, which is significantly higher than SPDM.L's -13.23% return. Over the past 10 years, CXAP.L has outperformed SPDM.L with an annualized return of 12.09%, while SPDM.L has yielded a comparatively lower 10.16% annualized return.


CXAP.L

1D
0.14%
1M
3.94%
YTD
26.29%
6M
27.63%
1Y
45.18%
3Y*
15.50%
5Y*
14.72%
10Y*
12.09%

SPDM.L

1D
0.55%
1M
-9.27%
YTD
-13.23%
6M
-7.76%
1Y
36.78%
3Y*
-3.85%
5Y*
-12.62%
10Y*
10.16%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CXAP.L
UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc
26.29%10.65%8.67%-10.60%27.69%36.79%-4.93%7.15%-6.02%5.06%
SPDM.L
iShares Physical Palladium ETC
-13.23%62.20%-17.63%-41.15%5.58%-19.60%19.23%47.36%25.02%42.70%

Correlation

The correlation between CXAP.L and SPDM.L is 0.27, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.27

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.28

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.33

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.32

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 12, 2016

0.32

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

CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CXAP.L
CXAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
CXAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8787
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CXAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
CXAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
CXAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
CXAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank

SPDM.L
SPDM.L Risk / Return Rank: 2424
Overall Rank
SPDM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SPDM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
SPDM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
SPDM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2424
Calmar Ratio Rank
SPDM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2020
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CXAP.L) and iShares Physical Palladium ETC (SPDM.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.


CXAP.LSPDM.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+2.01

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+2.35

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.52

1.18

+0.34

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.82

1.10

+6.72

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

20.31

2.37

+17.94

CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CXAP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.89, which is higher than the SPDM.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CXAP.L and SPDM.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CXAP.LSPDM.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.89

0.88

+2.01

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.91

-0.30

+1.21

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.76

0.27

+0.49

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.76

0.14

+0.62

Drawdowns

CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CXAP.L drawdown since its inception was -31.30%, smaller than the maximum SPDM.L drawdown of -70.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CXAP.L and SPDM.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CXAP.LSPDM.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.30%

-70.87%

+39.57%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.75%

-35.67%

+29.92%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.43%

-40.59%

+25.16%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.53%

-70.87%

+49.34%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.30%

-70.87%

+39.57%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.77%

-56.18%

+55.41%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.24%

-25.10%

+16.86%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.22%

16.54%

-14.32%

Volatility

CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CXAP.L) is 4.57%, while iShares Physical Palladium ETC (SPDM.L) has a volatility of 10.84%. This indicates that CXAP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SPDM.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CXAP.LSPDM.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.57%

10.84%

-6.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.73%

37.16%

-24.43%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.57%

44.70%

-29.13%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.18%

41.85%

-25.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.05%

37.57%

-21.52%

CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CXAP.L has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than SPDM.L's 0.20% expense ratio.


Dividends

CXAP.L vs. SPDM.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CXAP.L nor SPDM.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CXAP.L and SPDM.L have a correlation of 0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, SPDM.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

SPDM.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for CXAP.L.

CXAP.L tracks UBS CMCI Ex Agriculture Ex Livestock Capped, while SPDM.L tracks London Palladium PM Fix. They also come from different issuers: UBS and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for CXAP.L and 0.20% for SPDM.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CXAP.L and SPDM.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