LGGG.L vs. CMFP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LGGG.L (L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF) and CMFP.L (L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LGGG.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while CMFP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, LGGG.L returned 13.23%/yr vs 13.29%/yr for CMFP.L. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LGGG.L charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for CMFP.L.

Performance

LGGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF (LGGG.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, LGGG.L achieves a 10.12% return, which is significantly lower than CMFP.L's 19.16% return.

LGGG.L

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: 5.28%
• YTD: 10.12%
• 6M: 10.38%
• 1Y: 27.26%
• 3Y*: 17.85%
• 5Y*: 13.23%
• 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)

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
LGGG.L L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF	10.12%	12.92%	21.13%	18.08%	-8.24%	23.53%	12.41%	22.99%	-4.89%
CMFP.L L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF	19.16%	8.49%	6.86%	-11.43%	32.79%	34.61%	-0.92%	3.99%	-1.63%

Correlation

The correlation between LGGG.L and CMFP.L is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.09
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.09
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 14, 2018	0.24

The correlation between LGGG.L and CMFP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.09 (1 year) to 0.24 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors	LGGG.L	CMFP.L
Technology	28.4%	5.1%
Financial Services	15.9%	10.7%
Industrials	10.9%	-
Communication Services	9.7%	7.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	8.3%
Healthcare	8.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	13.6%
Energy	4.0%	-
Basic Materials	3.2%	49.3%
Utilities	2.5%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	5.5%

Return for Risk

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

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

LGGG.L

LGGG.L Risk / Return Rank: 82
LGGG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
LGGG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
LGGG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 85
LGGG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
LGGG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF (LGGG.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.

	LGGG.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.67	2.16	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.69	2.76	+0.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.39	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.07	4.81	-0.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.19	11.77	+4.42
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current LGGG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.67, which is comparable to the CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGGG.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

	LGGG.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.67	2.16	+0.51
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.00	0.89	+0.11
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.91	0.27	+0.65

Drawdowns

LGGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGGG.L drawdown since its inception was -25.38%, smaller than the maximum CMFP.L drawdown of -50.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGGG.L and CMFP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGGG.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.38%	-50.47%	+25.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.67%	-6.63%	-0.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.68%	-12.97%	-5.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.68%	-23.51%	+4.83%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-23.95%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	-3.64%	+3.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.21%	-24.51%	+21.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.68%	2.71%	-1.03%

Volatility

LGGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Global Equity UCITS ETF (LGGG.L) is 2.47%, while L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) has a volatility of 4.82%. This indicates that LGGG.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

	LGGG.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.47%	4.82%	-2.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.32%	12.18%	-4.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.16%	14.73%	-4.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.19%	14.86%	-1.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.09%	13.92%	+1.17%

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

LGGG.L has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is lower than CMFP.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGGG.L vs. CMFP.L - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

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

LGGG.L and CMFP.L have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, LGGG.L or CMFP.L?

On fees, LGGG.L is cheaper at 0.10% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

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

LGGG.L is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for CMFP.L.

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

LGGG.L is categorized as Global Equities, while CMFP.L is Commodities. LGGG.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. Their fees differ too: 0.10% for LGGG.L and 0.30% for CMFP.L.