IBTM vs. CMOD.L
IBTM (iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF) and CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IBTM is a Intermediate Core Bond fund tracking the ICE 2032 Maturity US Treasury Index, while CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, IBTM returned 2.68%/yr vs 16.17%/yr for CMOD.L. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. IBTM charges 0.07%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOD.L.
Performance
IBTM vs. CMOD.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IBTM achieves a -0.50% return, which is significantly lower than CMOD.L's 26.36% return.
IBTM
- 1D
- -0.18%
- 1M
- -0.15%
- YTD
- -0.50%
- 6M
- -0.81%
- 1Y
- 3.93%
- 3Y*
- 2.68%
- 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*
- —
IBTM vs. CMOD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF | -0.50% | 8.06% | -0.14% | 3.48% | -4.63% |
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF | 26.36% | 16.16% | 4.13% | -7.56% | -1.99% |
Correlation
The correlation between IBTM and CMOD.L is -0.16, 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 | -0.16 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.04 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2022 | -0.03 |
The correlation between IBTM and CMOD.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.16 (1 year) to -0.03 (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
IBTM vs. CMOD.L — Risk / Return Rank
IBTM
CMOD.L
IBTM vs. CMOD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM) 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.
| IBTM | CMOD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.42 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.17 | 1.43 | -0.26 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.21 | 5.35 | -4.14 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.51 | 12.47 | -8.97 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IBTM | CMOD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.96 | 2.33 | -1.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.68 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.20 | 0.48 | -0.28 |
Drawdowns
IBTM vs. CMOD.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IBTM drawdown since its inception was -13.60%, smaller than the maximum CMOD.L drawdown of -33.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBTM and CMOD.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IBTM | CMOD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -13.60% | -33.16% | +19.56% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.26% | -7.30% | +4.04% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -7.86% | -11.66% | +3.80% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -26.86% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.38% | -4.16% | +1.78% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.82% | -12.29% | +7.47% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.12% | 3.13% | -2.01% |
Volatility
IBTM vs. CMOD.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF (IBTM) is 1.20%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) has a volatility of 5.49%. This indicates that IBTM 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IBTM | CMOD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.20% | 5.49% | -4.29% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.75% | 14.87% | -12.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.09% | 16.73% | -12.64% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.56% | 16.57% | -9.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.56% | 14.68% | -7.12% |
IBTM vs. CMOD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
IBTM has a 0.07% 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
IBTM vs. CMOD.L - Dividend Comparison
IBTM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.95%, while CMOD.L has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IBTM iShares iBonds Dec 2032 Term Treasury ETF | 3.95% | 3.87% | 3.96% | 3.39% | 1.38% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IBTM and CMOD.L have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IBTM is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IBTM is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOD.L.
IBTM is categorized as Intermediate Core Bond, while CMOD.L is Commodities. IBTM tracks ICE 2032 Maturity US Treasury Index, while CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.07% for IBTM and 0.19% for CMOD.L.
Find the right allocation for IBTM and CMOD.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