EQGB.L vs. CMOP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

EQGB.L (Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc) and CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - EQGB.L is a Nasdaq-100 fund tracking the NASDAQ-100 Index, while CMOP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EQGB.L returned 16.35%/yr vs 12.08%/yr for CMOP.L. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EQGB.L charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOP.L.

Performance

EQGB.L vs. CMOP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQGB.L achieves a 18.86% return, which is significantly lower than CMOP.L's 24.84% return.

EQGB.L

• 1D: -0.71%
• 1M: 8.42%
• YTD: 18.86%
• 6M: 18.41%
• 1Y: 39.13%
• 3Y*: 27.25%
• 5Y*: 16.35%
• 10Y*: —

CMOP.L

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: -2.74%
• YTD: 24.84%
• 6M: 23.47%
• 1Y: 38.91%
• 3Y*: 12.42%
• 5Y*: 12.08%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	18.86%	19.59%	26.12%	53.92%	-35.07%	27.68%	45.43%	34.93%	-2.60%	5.50%
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	24.84%	8.23%	6.01%	-12.72%	28.44%	28.71%	-7.11%	3.31%	-5.01%	0.51%

Correlation

The correlation between EQGB.L and CMOP.L is -0.19, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.19
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.08
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 19, 2017	0.03

The correlation between EQGB.L and CMOP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to 0.03 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	EQGB.L	CMOP.L
Technology	53.6%	5.6%
Communication Services	15.8%	12.3%
Consumer Cyclical	12.2%	12.9%
Consumer Defensive	7.7%	9.7%
Healthcare	4.2%	-
Industrials	3.1%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	35.8%
Energy	0.6%	-
Financial Services	0.2%	17.8%
Real Estate	0.1%	5.8%

Return for Risk

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

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

EQGB.L

EQGB.L Risk / Return Rank: 73
EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
EQGB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
EQGB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 72
EQGB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
EQGB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 68

CMOP.L

CMOP.L Risk / Return Rank: 67
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: 65

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.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.

	EQGB.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	2.10	+0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.41	2.58	+0.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.39	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.44	5.07	-1.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.32	11.63	+0.69
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current EQGB.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is comparable to the CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQGB.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

	EQGB.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.46	2.10	+0.36
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.78	0.73	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	0.43	+0.48

Drawdowns

EQGB.L vs. CMOP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQGB.L drawdown since its inception was -36.77%, which is greater than CMOP.L's maximum drawdown of -28.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQGB.L and CMOP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQGB.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.77%	-28.78%	-7.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.33%	-7.63%	-3.70%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.76%	-14.89%	-7.87%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-36.77%	-28.78%	-7.99%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.81%	-4.98%	+4.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.52%	-12.18%	+4.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.17%	3.34%	-0.17%

Volatility

EQGB.L vs. CMOP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc (EQGB.L) is 4.92%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) has a volatility of 6.19%. This indicates that EQGB.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMOP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQGB.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.92%	6.19%	-1.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.88%	16.17%	-4.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.81%	18.42%	-2.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.95%	16.59%	+4.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.25%	15.15%	+6.10%

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

EQGB.L has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than CMOP.L's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQGB.L vs. CMOP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EQGB.L Invesco EQQQ Nasdaq-100 UCITS ETF GBP Hdg Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

EQGB.L and CMOP.L have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EQGB.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, EQGB.L or CMOP.L?

CMOP.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for EQGB.L.

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

EQGB.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CMOP.L is Commodities. EQGB.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for EQGB.L and 0.19% for CMOP.L.