ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ECOM.L (L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF) and GLGG.L (L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ECOM.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while GLGG.L is a Water Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Water TR. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ECOM.L returned 1.16%/yr vs 5.44%/yr for GLGG.L. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.49% expense ratio.

Performance

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF (ECOM.L) and L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

ECOM.L is traded in USD, while GLGG.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the GLGG.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECOM.L achieves a -1.18% return, which is significantly lower than GLGG.L's 1.37% return.

ECOM.L

• 1D: -1.62%
• 1M: 0.99%
• YTD: -1.18%
• 6M: 1.10%
• 1Y: 6.87%
• 3Y*: 8.41%
• 5Y*: 1.16%
• 10Y*: —

GLGG.L

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: -1.45%
• YTD: 1.37%
• 6M: 1.54%
• 1Y: 9.04%
• 3Y*: 11.01%
• 5Y*: 5.44%
• 10Y*: —

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

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ECOM.L L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF	-1.18%	11.07%	2.89%	21.80%	-21.59%	18.35%	43.47%	8.17%
GLGG.L L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF	1.37%	15.95%	3.98%	20.62%	-17.38%	26.68%	19.02%	10.94%

Correlation

The correlation between ECOM.L and GLGG.L is 0.53, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.53
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 17, 2019	0.67

The correlation between ECOM.L and GLGG.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (1 year) to 0.71 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ECOM.L	GLGG.L
Industrials	37.9%	65.2%
Consumer Cyclical	31.8%	-
Technology	16.2%	6.4%
Real Estate	7.7%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	1.7%
Financial Services	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	9.0%
Communication Services	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	1.9%
Utilities	-	15.8%

Return for Risk

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ECOM.L

ECOM.L Risk / Return Rank: 15
ECOM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
ECOM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
ECOM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 15
ECOM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 15
ECOM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 15

GLGG.L

GLGG.L Risk / Return Rank: 20
GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
GLGG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
GLGG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 19
GLGG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
GLGG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 19

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.

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF (ECOM.L) and L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.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.

	ECOM.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.39	0.60	-0.21
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.68	0.96	-0.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.11	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.49	0.71	-0.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.33	1.86	-0.53
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECOM.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.39, which is lower than the GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECOM.L and GLGG.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

	ECOM.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.39	0.60	-0.21
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.06	0.32	-0.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.39	0.58	-0.19

Drawdowns

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECOM.L drawdown since its inception was -39.66%, which is greater than GLGG.L's maximum drawdown of -35.04%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECOM.L and GLGG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECOM.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.66%	-35.04%	-4.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.90%	-12.72%	-1.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.23%	-16.51%	-4.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.66%	-30.24%	-9.42%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.84%	-9.29%	+4.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.46%	-7.66%	-3.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.15%	4.85%	+0.30%

Volatility

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Ecommerce Logistics UCITS ETF (ECOM.L) and L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L) have volatilities of 5.06% and 4.88%, 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

	ECOM.L	GLGG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.06%	4.88%	+0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.01%	11.97%	+1.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.41%	15.05%	+2.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.40%	17.24%	+2.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.10%	19.92%	-0.82%

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both ECOM.L and GLGG.L have an expense ratio of 0.49%.

Dividends

ECOM.L vs. GLGG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ECOM.L nor GLGG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECOM.L and GLGG.L in my portfolio?

ECOM.L and GLGG.L have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ECOM.L or GLGG.L?

Both ETFs have the same 0.49% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECOM.L or GLGG.L?

ECOM.L and GLGG.L have the same expense ratio: 0.49% per year.

What is the main difference between ECOM.L and GLGG.L?

ECOM.L is categorized as Technology Equities, while GLGG.L is Water Equities. ECOM.L tracks MSCI World/Information Tech NR USD, while GLGG.L tracks S&P Global Water TR.