DBMF vs. CMOD.L

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

DBMF (iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF) and CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - DBMF is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by iM Global Partners, while CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. DBMF is actively managed, while CMOD.L is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, DBMF returned 8.01%/yr vs 9.74%/yr for CMOD.L. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. DBMF charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOD.L.

Performance

DBMF vs. CMOD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) 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, DBMF achieves a 10.27% return, which is significantly lower than CMOD.L's 19.22% return.

DBMF

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: -1.34%
• YTD: 10.27%
• 6M: 11.24%
• 1Y: 26.94%
• 3Y*: 9.64%
• 5Y*: 8.01%
• 10Y*: —

CMOD.L

• 1D: -1.06%
• 1M: -8.02%
• YTD: 19.22%
• 6M: 20.80%
• 1Y: 27.62%
• 3Y*: 13.33%
• 5Y*: 9.74%
• 10Y*: —

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

DBMF vs. CMOD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	10.27%	13.85%	7.24%	-8.94%	21.61%	11.49%	1.80%	10.51%
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	19.22%	16.16%	4.12%	-7.56%	14.50%	27.35%	-3.87%	3.92%

Correlation

The correlation between DBMF and CMOD.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	0.20
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 8, 2019	0.17

Over the past year, DBMF and CMOD.L have become more correlated (0.37) than their long-term average of 0.17, meaning their price movements have been converging.

DBMF vs. CMOD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	DBMF	CMOD.L
Technology	29.8%	5.6%
Healthcare	12.7%	-
Financial Services	12.5%	17.8%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	12.9%
Communication Services	8.6%	12.3%
Industrials	8.4%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.1%	9.7%
Energy	3.9%	-
Real Estate	2.5%	5.8%
Utilities	2.3%	-
Basic Materials	2.2%	35.8%

Return for Risk

DBMF vs. CMOD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

DBMF

DBMF Risk / Return Rank: 84
DBMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
DBMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
DBMF Omega Ratio Rank: 87
DBMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
DBMF Martin Ratio Rank: 87

CMOD.L

CMOD.L Risk / Return Rank: 59
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) 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.

	DBMF	CMOD.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.22	1.73	+0.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.92	2.23	+0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.32	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.50	3.07	+1.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.30	8.68	+7.62

DBMF vs. CMOD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current DBMF Sharpe Ratio is 2.22, which is comparable to the CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of DBMF 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

DBMF vs. CMOD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum DBMF drawdown since its inception was -20.39%, smaller than the maximum CMOD.L drawdown of -33.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for DBMF and CMOD.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	DBMF	CMOD.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.39%	-33.16%	+12.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.10%	-9.59%	+3.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.60%	-11.65%	-3.95%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.39%	-26.86%	+6.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.91%	-9.59%	+7.68%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.56%	-12.24%	+5.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.68%	3.40%	-1.72%

Volatility

DBMF vs. CMOD.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF (DBMF) is 2.71%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) has a volatility of 4.36%. This indicates that DBMF 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

	DBMF	CMOD.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.71%	4.36%	-1.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.00%	15.04%	-5.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.35%	16.99%	-4.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.55%	16.61%	-4.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.41%	14.68%	-2.27%

DBMF vs. CMOD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

DBMF has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CMOD.L's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

DBMF vs. CMOD.L - Dividend Comparison

DBMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%, while CMOD.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
DBMF iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF	5.19%	5.91%	5.75%	2.91%	7.72%	10.38%	0.86%	9.35%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

DBMF and CMOD.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, DBMF 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, DBMF or CMOD.L?

CMOD.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DBMF.

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

DBMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while CMOD.L is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: iM Global Partners and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for DBMF and 0.19% for CMOD.L.