FTWG.L vs. CMOP.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FTWG.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Dist) and CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - FTWG.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index, while CMOP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FTWG.L returned 30.40% vs 40.15% for CMOP.L. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FTWG.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOP.L.

Performance

FTWG.L vs. CMOP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Dist (FTWG.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, FTWG.L achieves a 11.90% return, which is significantly lower than CMOP.L's 26.50% return.

FTWG.L

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: 5.92%
• YTD: 11.90%
• 6M: 12.72%
• 1Y: 30.40%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FTWG.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Dist	11.90%	14.12%	19.92%	7.22%
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	26.50%	8.23%	6.01%	0.78%

Correlation

The correlation between FTWG.L and CMOP.L is -0.14, 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	-0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023	0.08

The correlation between FTWG.L and CMOP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.14 (1 year) to 0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	FTWG.L	CMOP.L
Technology	29.1%	5.6%
Financial Services	16.4%	17.8%
Industrials	11.0%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	12.9%
Communication Services	8.9%	12.3%
Healthcare	7.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	9.7%
Energy	4.3%	-
Basic Materials	3.9%	35.8%
Utilities	2.6%	-
Real Estate	1.9%	5.8%

Return for Risk

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

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

FTWG.L

FTWG.L Risk / Return Rank: 85
FTWG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
FTWG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FTWG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 88
FTWG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
FTWG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Dist (FTWG.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.

	FTWG.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.94	2.18	+0.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.04	2.66	+1.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.40	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.26	5.24	-0.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.35	12.05	+5.30
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current FTWG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.94, which is higher than the CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTWG.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

	FTWG.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.94	2.18	+0.77
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.75	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.55	0.44	+1.11

Drawdowns

FTWG.L vs. CMOP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTWG.L drawdown since its inception was -17.78%, smaller than the maximum CMOP.L drawdown of -28.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTWG.L and CMOP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FTWG.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.78%	-28.78%	+11.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.11%	-7.63%	+0.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.89%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.39%	-3.71%	+3.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.99%	-12.18%	+10.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.75%	3.32%	-1.57%

Volatility

FTWG.L vs. CMOP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Dist (FTWG.L) is 3.03%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) has a volatility of 6.20%. This indicates that FTWG.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

	FTWG.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.03%	6.20%	-3.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.59%	16.11%	-8.52%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.31%	18.36%	-8.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.90%	16.58%	-4.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.90%	15.14%	-3.24%

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

FTWG.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CMOP.L's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

FTWG.L vs. CMOP.L - Dividend Comparison

FTWG.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.21%, while CMOP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FTWG.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF USD Dist	1.21%	1.34%	1.50%	0.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

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

FTWG.L and CMOP.L have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

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

On fees, FTWG.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FTWG.L or CMOP.L?

FTWG.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOP.L.

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

FTWG.L is categorized as Global Equities, while CMOP.L is Commodities. FTWG.L tracks FTSE All-World Index, while CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FTWG.L and 0.19% for CMOP.L.