FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FWRG.L (Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc) and CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FWRG.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the FTSE All-World Index, while CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, FWRG.L returned 30.35% vs 39.19% for CMOD.L. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FWRG.L charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOD.L.

Performance

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FWRG.L achieves a 11.97% return, which is significantly lower than CMOD.L's 26.36% return.

FWRG.L

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 5.96%
• YTD: 11.97%
• 6M: 12.52%
• 1Y: 30.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CMOD.L

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: -1.74%
• YTD: 26.36%
• 6M: 25.60%
• 1Y: 39.19%
• 3Y*: 16.17%
• 5Y*: 11.19%
• 10Y*: —

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

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FWRG.L Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc	11.97%	13.84%	20.11%	8.08%
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	26.36%	16.16%	4.13%	1.90%

Correlation

The correlation between FWRG.L and CMOD.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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2023	0.03

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

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FWRG.L	CMOD.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

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

FWRG.L

FWRG.L Risk / Return Rank: 85
FWRG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
FWRG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
FWRG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 88
FWRG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
FWRG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 83

CMOD.L

CMOD.L Risk / Return Rank: 72
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 71
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.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.

	FWRG.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.93	2.33	+0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.06	2.88	+1.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.56	1.43	+0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.23	5.35	-1.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.11	12.47	+4.64
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FWRG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.93, which is comparable to the CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FWRG.L and CMOD.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

	FWRG.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.93	2.33	+0.60
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.68	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.51	0.48	+1.03

Drawdowns

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FWRG.L drawdown since its inception was -18.88%, smaller than the maximum CMOD.L drawdown of -33.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FWRG.L and CMOD.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FWRG.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.88%	-33.16%	+14.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.14%	-7.30%	+0.16%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.66%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-26.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	-4.16%	+3.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.28%	-12.29%	+10.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.77%	3.13%	-1.36%

Volatility

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco FTSE All-World UCITS ETF Acc (FWRG.L) is 2.96%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) has a volatility of 5.49%. This indicates that FWRG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMOD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FWRG.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.96%	5.49%	-2.53%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.69%	14.87%	-7.18%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.33%	16.73%	-6.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.41%	16.57%	-4.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.41%	14.68%	-2.27%

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FWRG.L has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than CMOD.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

FWRG.L vs. CMOD.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither FWRG.L nor CMOD.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FWRG.L and CMOD.L in my portfolio?

FWRG.L and CMOD.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, FWRG.L or CMOD.L?

On fees, FWRG.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, FWRG.L or CMOD.L?

FWRG.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOD.L.

What is the main difference between FWRG.L and CMOD.L?

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