EQQQ.L vs. CMOP.L

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

EQQQ.L (Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF) and CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - EQQQ.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, EQQQ.L returned 16.98%/yr vs 10.48%/yr for CMOP.L. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EQQQ.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOP.L.

Performance

EQQQ.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 (EQQQ.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, EQQQ.L achieves a 17.72% return, which is significantly higher than CMOP.L's 15.91% return.

EQQQ.L

• 1D: -0.78%
• 1M: -0.18%
• YTD: 17.72%
• 6M: 17.40%
• 1Y: 36.45%
• 3Y*: 24.34%
• 5Y*: 16.98%
• 10Y*: 22.04%

CMOP.L

• 1D: 0.63%
• 1M: -8.33%
• YTD: 15.91%
• 6M: 14.87%
• 1Y: 28.71%
• 3Y*: 9.69%
• 5Y*: 10.48%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EQQQ.L Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF	17.72%	11.54%	28.55%	47.79%	-25.54%	29.59%	43.32%	33.69%	4.64%	18.57%
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	15.91%	8.23%	6.01%	-12.72%	28.44%	28.71%	-7.11%	1.37%	-3.26%	-24.46%

Correlation

The correlation between EQQQ.L and CMOP.L is -0.01, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.07
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 9, 2017	0.14

The correlation between EQQQ.L and CMOP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (1 year) to 0.14 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

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

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

EQQQ.L

EQQQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 76
EQQQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
EQQQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
EQQQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 80
EQQQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
EQQQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 62

CMOP.L

CMOP.L Risk / Return Rank: 52
CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
CMOP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
CMOP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 53
CMOP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
CMOP.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.

EQQQ.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 (EQQQ.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.

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.

	EQQQ.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	1.58	+0.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.09	2.04	+1.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.29	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.31	2.32	+0.99
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.57	8.57	+1.00

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

The current EQQQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is higher than the CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.58. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQQQ.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.

Drawdowns

EQQQ.L vs. CMOP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQQQ.L drawdown since its inception was -65.36%, which is greater than CMOP.L's maximum drawdown of -44.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQQQ.L and CMOP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQQQ.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.36%	-44.21%	-21.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.97%	-12.32%	+1.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.09%	-26.87%	+2.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.76%	-28.78%	+1.02%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-27.76%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.25%	-11.77%	+8.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.48%	-21.85%	+9.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.80%	3.34%	+0.46%

Volatility

EQQQ.L vs. CMOP.L - Volatility Comparison

Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF (EQQQ.L) has a higher volatility of 6.27% compared to Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) at 4.11%. This indicates that EQQQ.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMOP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQQQ.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.27%	4.11%	+2.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.62%	16.39%	-4.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.71%	18.09%	-2.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.29%	21.30%	-2.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.35%	19.00%	+0.35%

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

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

Dividends

EQQQ.L vs. CMOP.L - Dividend Comparison

EQQQ.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.23%, while CMOP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EQQQ.L Invesco EQQQ NASDAQ-100 UCITS ETF	0.23%	0.29%	0.38%	0.39%	0.56%	0.25%	0.41%	0.56%	0.63%	0.67%	0.77%	0.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

EQQQ.L and CMOP.L have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

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

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

EQQQ.L is categorized as Nasdaq-100, while CMOP.L is Commodities. EQQQ.L tracks NASDAQ-100 Index, while CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for EQQQ.L and 0.19% for CMOP.L.