PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
IBTL.L vs. CMOP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

IBTL.L vs. CMOP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares USD Treasury Bond 20+yr UCITS ETF (Dist) (IBTL.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBTL.L achieves a -1.02% return, which is significantly lower than CMOP.L's 26.50% return.


IBTL.L

1D
-0.23%
1M
1.40%
YTD
-1.02%
6M
-2.44%
1Y
5.37%
3Y*
-4.19%
5Y*
-5.14%
10Y*
-0.81%

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)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
IBTL.L
iShares USD Treasury Bond 20+yr UCITS ETF (Dist)
-1.02%-2.80%-5.50%-3.62%-22.17%-3.32%13.07%12.05%3.06%-1.60%
CMOP.L
Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc
26.50%8.23%6.01%-12.72%28.44%28.71%-7.11%3.31%-5.01%-5.69%

Correlation

The correlation between IBTL.L and CMOP.L is -0.11, 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

-0.11

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

-0.04

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.05

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2017

0.04

The correlation between IBTL.L and CMOP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

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

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

IBTL.L
IBTL.L Risk / Return Rank: 1717
Overall Rank
IBTL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IBTL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 1717
Sortino Ratio Rank
IBTL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 1616
Omega Ratio Rank
IBTL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
IBTL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 1616
Martin Ratio Rank

CMOP.L
CMOP.L Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMOP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMOP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
CMOP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMOP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Treasury Bond 20+yr UCITS ETF (Dist) (IBTL.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.


IBTL.LCMOP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.61

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.77

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.10

1.40

-0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.65

5.24

-4.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

1.41

12.05

-10.65

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

The current IBTL.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.56, which is lower than the CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBTL.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


IBTL.LCMOP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.56

2.18

-1.61

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

-0.33

0.75

-1.08

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

-0.05

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

-0.03

0.44

-0.47

Drawdowns

IBTL.L vs. CMOP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBTL.L drawdown since its inception was -48.85%, which is greater than CMOP.L's maximum drawdown of -28.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTL.L and CMOP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


IBTL.LCMOP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-48.85%

-28.78%

-20.07%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.25%

-7.63%

-0.62%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-17.70%

-14.89%

-2.81%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-39.35%

-28.78%

-10.57%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-48.85%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-45.46%

-3.71%

-41.75%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-23.74%

-12.18%

-11.56%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.80%

3.32%

+0.48%

Volatility

IBTL.L vs. CMOP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares USD Treasury Bond 20+yr UCITS ETF (Dist) (IBTL.L) is 2.42%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) has a volatility of 6.20%. This indicates that IBTL.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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


IBTL.LCMOP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.42%

6.20%

-3.78%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.55%

16.11%

-9.56%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

9.53%

18.36%

-8.83%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.48%

16.58%

-1.10%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.54%

15.14%

+1.40%

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

IBTL.L has a 0.07% 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

IBTL.L vs. CMOP.L - Dividend Comparison

IBTL.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.36%, while CMOP.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
IBTL.L
iShares USD Treasury Bond 20+yr UCITS ETF (Dist)
4.36%4.32%4.59%3.78%2.96%1.72%1.86%2.54%2.75%2.66%2.44%2.07%

Frequently Asked Questions


IBTL.L and CMOP.L have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IBTL.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IBTL.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOP.L.

IBTL.L is categorized as Government Bonds, while CMOP.L is Commodities. IBTL.L tracks ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index, while CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBTL.L and 0.19% for CMOP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for IBTL.L and CMOP.L

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer