PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CXAP.L vs. UC90.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CXAP.L vs. UC90.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CXAP.L (UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc) and UC90.L (UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc) are both Commodities funds from UBS - CXAP.L tracks the UBS CMCI Ex Agriculture Ex Livestock Capped while UC90.L tracks the UBS CMCI (GBP Hedged). Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CXAP.L returned 12.09%/yr vs 7.85%/yr for UC90.L. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.34% expense ratio.

Performance

CXAP.L vs. UC90.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 UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc (UC90.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 UC90.L's 23.00% return. Over the past 10 years, CXAP.L has outperformed UC90.L with an annualized return of 12.09%, while UC90.L has yielded a comparatively lower 7.85% 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%

UC90.L

1D
0.34%
1M
0.97%
YTD
23.00%
6M
23.96%
1Y
31.84%
3Y*
13.68%
5Y*
11.16%
10Y*
7.85%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CXAP.L vs. UC90.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%
UC90.L
UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc		23.00%9.58%4.52%-2.02%14.86%33.21%-1.26%5.91%-11.85%5.39%

Correlation

The correlation between CXAP.L and UC90.L is 0.84, 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

0.84

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

0.81

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

0.80

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

0.76

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

0.76

The correlation between CXAP.L and UC90.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

CXAP.L vs. UC90.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CXAP.L
UC90.L

Technology

32.6%
31.0%

Industrials

14.6%
6.6%

Financial Services

12.6%
10.9%

Communication Services

10.6%
15.0%

Consumer Cyclical

10.6%
7.3%

Healthcare

6.4%
9.8%

Utilities

4.4%
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

3.9%
3.7%

Energy

2.9%
14.2%

Basic Materials

1.4%
0.5%

Real Estate

0.2%

-

Technology

CXAP.L
32.6%
UC90.L
31.0%

Industrials

CXAP.L
14.6%
UC90.L
6.6%

Financial Services

CXAP.L
12.6%
UC90.L
10.9%

Communication Services

CXAP.L
10.6%
UC90.L
15.0%

Consumer Cyclical

CXAP.L
10.6%
UC90.L
7.3%

Healthcare

CXAP.L
6.4%
UC90.L
9.8%

Utilities

CXAP.L
4.4%
UC90.L
1.1%

Consumer Defensive

CXAP.L
3.9%
UC90.L
3.7%

Energy

CXAP.L
2.9%
UC90.L
14.2%

Basic Materials

CXAP.L
1.4%
UC90.L
0.5%

Real Estate

CXAP.L
0.2%
UC90.L

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc

UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc

Often compared with CXAP.L:
CXAP.L vs. UD06.LCXAP.L vs. ETRA.LCXAP.L vs. RMAU.LCXAP.L vs. WCOM.LCXAP.L vs. COMX.LCXAP.L vs. CMOD.LCXAP.L vs. WCOB.L
Often compared with UC90.L:
UC90.L vs. ROLG.LUC90.L vs. AIGC.LUC90.L vs. BCOG.LUC90.L vs. XDBG.LUC90.L vs. XFRM.LUC90.L vs. ENCG.LUC90.L vs. XBCU.L

Return for Risk

CXAP.L vs. UC90.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
UC90.L
UC90.L Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
UC90.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7979
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UC90.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
UC90.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
UC90.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
UC90.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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. UC90.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 UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc (UC90.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.LUC90.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
2.89
2.56

+0.33

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
3.71
3.38

+0.33

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.52

1.46

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

7.82

6.62

+1.20

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

20.31

14.87

+5.44

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CXAP.L vs. UC90.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CXAP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.89, which is comparable to the UC90.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CXAP.L and UC90.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.LUC90.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.89

2.56

+0.33

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.91

0.76

+0.15

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.76

0.55

+0.20

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.76

0.39

+0.37

Drawdowns

CXAP.L vs. UC90.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CXAP.L drawdown since its inception was -31.30%, smaller than the maximum UC90.L drawdown of -41.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CXAP.L and UC90.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CXAP.LUC90.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-31.30%

-41.45%

+10.15%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.75%

-4.79%

-0.96%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.43%

-11.47%

-3.96%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-21.53%

-19.19%

-2.34%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-31.30%

-38.26%

+6.96%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.77%

-3.41%

+2.64%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.24%

-13.18%

+4.94%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.22%

2.14%

+0.08%

Volatility

CXAP.L vs. UC90.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 UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc (UC90.L) has a volatility of 5.01%. This indicates that CXAP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UC90.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CXAP.LUC90.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.57%

5.01%

-0.44%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.73%

10.18%

+2.55%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.57%

12.40%

+3.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.18%

14.75%

+1.43%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.05%

14.23%

+1.82%

CXAP.L vs. UC90.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both CXAP.L and UC90.L have an expense ratio of 0.34%.

Dividends

CXAP.L vs. UC90.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CXAP.L nor UC90.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

CXAP.L and UC90.L have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Both ETFs have the same 0.34% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CXAP.L and UC90.L have the same expense ratio: 0.34% per year.

CXAP.L tracks UBS CMCI Ex Agriculture Ex Livestock Capped, while UC90.L tracks UBS CMCI (GBP Hedged).

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CXAP.L and UC90.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