ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ENCG.L (L&G Multi-Strategy Enhanced Commodities UCITS ETF) and CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) are both Commodities funds - ENCG.L tracks the Barclays Backwardation Tilt Multi-Strategy Capped while CMOP.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ENCG.L returned 10.78%/yr vs 13.35%/yr for CMOP.L. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ENCG.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOP.L.

Performance

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Multi-Strategy Enhanced Commodities UCITS ETF (ENCG.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with ENCG.L having a 26.21% return and CMOP.L slightly higher at 26.50%.

ENCG.L

• 1D: 0.77%
• 1M: 0.86%
• YTD: 26.21%
• 6M: 24.44%
• 1Y: 35.56%
• 3Y*: 10.78%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CMOP.L

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: -0.24%
• YTD: 26.50%
• 6M: 24.83%
• 1Y: 40.15%
• 3Y*: 13.35%
• 5Y*: 12.38%
• 10Y*: —

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

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ENCG.L L&G Multi-Strategy Enhanced Commodities UCITS ETF	26.21%	0.89%	5.39%	-7.83%	38.17%	13.94%
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	26.50%	8.23%	6.01%	-12.72%	28.44%	7.06%

Correlation

The correlation between ENCG.L and CMOP.L is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 21, 2021	0.90

The correlation between ENCG.L and CMOP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ENCG.L	CMOP.L
Basic Materials	-	35.8%
Communication Services	-	12.3%
Consumer Cyclical	-	12.9%
Consumer Defensive	-	9.7%
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	17.8%
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Technology	-	5.6%
Utilities	-	-
Real Estate	-3.5%	5.8%

Return for Risk

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ENCG.L

ENCG.L Risk / Return Rank: 63
ENCG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
ENCG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
ENCG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 59
ENCG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ENCG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 64

CMOP.L

CMOP.L Risk / Return Rank: 68
CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
CMOP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
CMOP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CMOP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CMOP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Multi-Strategy Enhanced Commodities UCITS ETF (ENCG.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.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.

	ENCG.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	2.18	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.54	2.66	-0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.40	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.22	5.24	-1.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.46	12.05	-0.59
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ENCG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is comparable to the CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ENCG.L and CMOP.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

	ENCG.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.01	2.18	-0.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.75	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.81	0.44	+0.37

Drawdowns

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ENCG.L drawdown since its inception was -26.32%, smaller than the maximum CMOP.L drawdown of -28.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ENCG.L and CMOP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ENCG.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.32%	-28.78%	+2.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.38%	-7.63%	-0.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.11%	-14.89%	-2.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.90%	-3.71%	+0.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.09%	-12.18%	-0.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.09%	3.32%	-0.23%

Volatility

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G Multi-Strategy Enhanced Commodities UCITS ETF (ENCG.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) have volatilities of 6.35% and 6.20%, 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

	ENCG.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.35%	6.20%	+0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.27%	16.11%	-1.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.61%	18.36%	-0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.11%	16.58%	+1.53%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.11%	15.14%	+2.97%

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

ENCG.L vs. CMOP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ENCG.L nor CMOP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ENCG.L and CMOP.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, ENCG.L and CMOP.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, ENCG.L or CMOP.L?

On fees, CMOP.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, ENCG.L or CMOP.L?

CMOP.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for ENCG.L.

What is the main difference between ENCG.L and CMOP.L?

ENCG.L tracks Barclays Backwardation Tilt Multi-Strategy Capped, while CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity. They also come from different issuers: Legal & General and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for ENCG.L and 0.19% for CMOP.L.