ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ETRA.L (L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc) and CXAP.L (UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc) are both Commodities funds - ETRA.L tracks the Solactive Energy Transition Commodity Total Return Index while CXAP.L tracks the UBS CMCI Ex Agriculture Ex Livestock Capped. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ETRA.L returned 41.57% vs 44.84% for CXAP.L. A 0.74 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ETRA.L charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for CXAP.L.

Performance

ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc (ETRA.L) and UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CXAP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ETRA.L achieves a 14.70% return, which is significantly lower than CXAP.L's 25.34% return.

ETRA.L

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 2.05%
• YTD: 14.70%
• 6M: 22.21%
• 1Y: 41.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CXAP.L

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 1.43%
• YTD: 25.34%
• 6M: 26.88%
• 1Y: 44.84%
• 3Y*: 14.83%
• 5Y*: 14.55%
• 10Y*: 11.86%

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

ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ETRA.L L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc	14.70%	19.38%	-2.27%
CXAP.L UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc	25.34%	10.65%	-3.78%

Correlation

The correlation between ETRA.L and CXAP.L is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2024	0.74

The correlation between ETRA.L and CXAP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ETRA.L

ETRA.L Risk / Return Rank: 88
ETRA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ETRA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
ETRA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 91
ETRA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
ETRA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 83

CXAP.L

CXAP.L Risk / Return Rank: 88
CXAP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
CXAP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CXAP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 86
CXAP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CXAP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc (ETRA.L) and UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CXAP.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.

	ETRA.L	CXAP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.03	2.87	+0.16
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.98	3.68	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.58	1.51	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.76	7.76	-3.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.67	20.14	-3.46
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ETRA.L Sharpe Ratio is 3.03, which is comparable to the CXAP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ETRA.L and CXAP.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

	ETRA.L	CXAP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.03	2.87	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.90	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.74	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.13	0.76	+0.38

Drawdowns

ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ETRA.L drawdown since its inception was -15.11%, smaller than the maximum CXAP.L drawdown of -31.30%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ETRA.L and CXAP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ETRA.L	CXAP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.11%	-31.30%	+16.19%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.70%	-5.75%	-2.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.43%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.53%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.30%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.41%	-1.52%	-0.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.29%	-8.23%	+1.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.49%	2.22%	+0.27%

Volatility

ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G New Energy Commodities UCITS ETF USD Acc (ETRA.L) is 2.99%, while UBS ETF (IE) CMCI ex-Agriculture SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (CXAP.L) has a volatility of 4.37%. This indicates that ETRA.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CXAP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ETRA.L	CXAP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.99%	4.37%	-1.38%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.44%	12.75%	-1.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.66%	15.59%	-1.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.89%	16.18%	-3.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.89%	16.05%	-3.16%

ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ETRA.L has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than CXAP.L's 0.34% expense ratio.

Dividends

ETRA.L vs. CXAP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ETRA.L nor CXAP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ETRA.L and CXAP.L in my portfolio?

ETRA.L and CXAP.L have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ETRA.L or CXAP.L?

On fees, CXAP.L is cheaper at 0.34% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ETRA.L or CXAP.L?

CXAP.L is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for ETRA.L.

What is the main difference between ETRA.L and CXAP.L?

ETRA.L tracks Solactive Energy Transition Commodity Total Return Index, while CXAP.L tracks UBS CMCI Ex Agriculture Ex Livestock Capped. They also come from different issuers: L&G and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for ETRA.L and 0.34% for CXAP.L.