LGOV vs. CMDT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LGOV (First Trust Long Duration Opportunities ETF) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LGOV is a Mortgage Backed Securities fund actively managed by First Trust, while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. LGOV is actively managed, while CMDT is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LGOV returned 2.47%/yr vs 16.90%/yr for CMDT. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. LGOV charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.

Performance

LGOV vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Long Duration Opportunities ETF (LGOV) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LGOV achieves a -0.60% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 23.96% return.

LGOV

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: 0.01%
• YTD: -0.60%
• 6M: -1.29%
• 1Y: 5.85%
• 3Y*: 2.47%
• 5Y*: -1.74%
• 10Y*: —

CMDT

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: -0.63%
• YTD: 23.96%
• 6M: 24.09%
• 1Y: 35.85%
• 3Y*: 16.90%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LGOV vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LGOV First Trust Long Duration Opportunities ETF	-0.60%	9.13%	-2.05%	-0.21%
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	23.96%	12.78%	6.93%	5.50%

Correlation

The correlation between LGOV and CMDT is -0.26, 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	-0.26
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 11, 2023	-0.13

The correlation between LGOV and CMDT shifts across timeframes, from -0.26 (1 year) to -0.12 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LGOV vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGOV

LGOV Risk / Return Rank: 23
LGOV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
LGOV Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
LGOV Omega Ratio Rank: 22
LGOV Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
LGOV Martin Ratio Rank: 24

CMDT

CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 88
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

LGOV vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Long Duration Opportunities ETF (LGOV) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). 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.

	LGOV	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.84	2.92	-2.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.24	3.92	-2.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.50	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.05	8.03	-6.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.08	22.12	-19.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LGOV vs. CMDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGOV Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the CMDT Sharpe Ratio of 2.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGOV and CMDT, 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

	LGOV	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84	2.92	-2.08
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.19	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.13	1.32	-1.19

Drawdowns

LGOV vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGOV drawdown since its inception was -30.86%, which is greater than CMDT's maximum drawdown of -9.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGOV and CMDT.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGOV	CMDT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.86%	-9.69%	-21.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.62%	-4.49%	-1.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.54%	-9.69%	-2.85%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.14%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.30%	-2.86%	-12.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.08%	-2.69%	-10.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	1.63%	+0.27%

Volatility

LGOV vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust Long Duration Opportunities ETF (LGOV) is 2.71%, while PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) has a volatility of 4.33%. This indicates that LGOV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGOV	CMDT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.71%	4.33%	-1.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.15%	10.30%	-5.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.01%	12.35%	-5.34%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.07%	12.21%	-3.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.24%	12.21%	-2.97%

LGOV vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGOV has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGOV vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison

LGOV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.27%, more than CMDT's 2.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.44%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LGOV First Trust Long Duration Opportunities ETF	4.27%	4.02%	4.03%	3.59%	1.97%	2.58%	3.75%	3.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGOV and CMDT in my portfolio?

LGOV and CMDT have a correlation of -0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGOV or CMDT?

CMDT has higher volatility (4.33%) compared to LGOV (2.71%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGOV dropped -30.86% vs CMDT's -9.69%.

Which ETF is better, LGOV or CMDT?

On 3-year performance, CMDT leads with 16.90% vs 2.47% for LGOV. On fees, CMDT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, LGOV has been the lower-risk option at 2.71%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGOV or CMDT?

Over the 3-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 16.90% return vs 2.47%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGOV or CMDT?

CMDT is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for LGOV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LGOV or CMDT?

LGOV has the higher dividend yield at 4.27%, compared with 2.44% for CMDT.

What is the main difference between LGOV and CMDT?

LGOV is categorized as Mortgage Backed Securities, while CMDT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for LGOV and 0.65% for CMDT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CMDT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.92 vs 0.84), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.