GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

GLGG.L (L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF) and CMFP.L (L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GLGG.L is a Water Equities fund tracking the S&P Global Water TR, while CMFP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, GLGG.L returned 6.66%/yr vs 13.29%/yr for CMFP.L. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GLGG.L charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for CMFP.L.

Performance

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L) and L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLGG.L achieves a 2.12% return, which is significantly lower than CMFP.L's 19.16% return.

GLGG.L

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: -0.96%
• YTD: 2.12%
• 6M: 1.19%
• 1Y: 9.96%
• 3Y*: 8.33%
• 5Y*: 6.66%
• 10Y*: —

CMFP.L

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: -1.18%
• YTD: 19.16%
• 6M: 18.60%
• 1Y: 32.00%
• 3Y*: 10.92%
• 5Y*: 13.29%
• 10Y*: 9.22%

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

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
GLGG.L L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF	2.12%	7.81%	5.74%	14.58%	-7.49%	27.84%	14.27%	4.99%
CMFP.L L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF	19.16%	8.49%	6.86%	-11.43%	32.79%	34.61%	-0.92%	-3.69%

Correlation

The correlation between GLGG.L and CMFP.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	0.02
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 17, 2019	0.14

The correlation between GLGG.L and CMFP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.19 (1 year) to 0.14 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GLGG.L	CMFP.L
Industrials	65.2%	-
Utilities	15.8%	-
Basic Materials	9.0%	49.3%
Technology	6.4%	5.1%
Healthcare	1.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.7%	13.6%
Communication Services	-	7.6%
Consumer Cyclical	-	8.3%
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.7%
Real Estate	-	5.5%

Return for Risk

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLGG.L

GLGG.L Risk / Return Rank: 21
GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
GLGG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
GLGG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 21
GLGG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
GLGG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 20

CMFP.L

CMFP.L Risk / Return Rank: 69
CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CMFP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CMFP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CMFP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
CMFP.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.

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L) and L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.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.

	GLGG.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.72	2.16	-1.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.07	2.76	-1.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.39	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.85	4.81	-3.95
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.15	11.77	-9.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLGG.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.72, which is lower than the CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLGG.L and CMFP.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

	GLGG.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.72	2.16	-1.44
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44	0.89	-0.45
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.58	0.27	+0.32

Drawdowns

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLGG.L drawdown since its inception was -27.08%, smaller than the maximum CMFP.L drawdown of -50.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLGG.L and CMFP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLGG.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.08%	-50.47%	+23.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.62%	-6.63%	-4.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.35%	-12.97%	-3.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.82%	-23.51%	+4.69%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-23.95%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.46%	-3.64%	-4.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.14%	-24.51%	+19.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.63%	2.71%	+1.92%

Volatility

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Clean Water UCITS ETF (GLGG.L) is 4.33%, while L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) has a volatility of 4.82%. This indicates that GLGG.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMFP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLGG.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.33%	4.82%	-0.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.10%	12.18%	-1.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.76%	14.73%	-0.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.04%	14.86%	+0.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.68%	13.92%	+3.76%

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLGG.L has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than CMFP.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither GLGG.L nor CMFP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLGG.L and CMFP.L in my portfolio?

GLGG.L and CMFP.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, GLGG.L or CMFP.L?

On fees, CMFP.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GLGG.L or CMFP.L?

CMFP.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for GLGG.L.

What is the main difference between GLGG.L and CMFP.L?

GLGG.L is categorized as Water Equities, while CMFP.L is Commodities. GLGG.L tracks S&P Global Water TR, while CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for GLGG.L and 0.30% for CMFP.L.