MXWS.L vs. CMOP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MXWS.L (Invesco MSCI World UCITS ETF) and CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) are both exchange-traded funds - MXWS.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI NR USD, while CMOP.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, MXWS.L returned 13.12%/yr vs 12.08%/yr for CMOP.L. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. Both charge a 0.19% expense ratio.

Performance

MXWS.L vs. CMOP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI World UCITS ETF (MXWS.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MXWS.L achieves a 10.17% return, which is significantly lower than CMOP.L's 24.84% return.

MXWS.L

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 5.20%
• YTD: 10.17%
• 6M: 10.37%
• 1Y: 27.42%
• 3Y*: 17.75%
• 5Y*: 13.12%
• 10Y*: 14.18%

CMOP.L

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: -2.74%
• YTD: 24.84%
• 6M: 23.47%
• 1Y: 38.91%
• 3Y*: 12.42%
• 5Y*: 12.08%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
MXWS.L Invesco MSCI World UCITS ETF	10.17%	12.63%	21.11%	17.73%	-8.30%	23.66%	12.37%	23.46%	-3.87%	6.48%
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	24.84%	8.23%	6.01%	-12.72%	28.44%	28.71%	-7.11%	3.31%	-5.01%	-5.69%

Correlation

The correlation between MXWS.L and CMOP.L is -0.12, 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	-0.12
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.07
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2017	0.21

The correlation between MXWS.L and CMOP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.21 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MXWS.L vs. CMOP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MXWS.L	CMOP.L
Technology	28.3%	5.6%
Financial Services	15.7%	17.8%
Industrials	11.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	9.3%	12.9%
Communication Services	9.3%	12.3%
Healthcare	8.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	5.2%	9.7%
Energy	4.2%	-
Basic Materials	3.3%	35.8%
Utilities	2.7%	-
Real Estate	1.9%	5.8%

Return for Risk

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

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

MXWS.L

MXWS.L Risk / Return Rank: 83
MXWS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
MXWS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
MXWS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 84
MXWS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
MXWS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 83

CMOP.L

CMOP.L Risk / Return Rank: 67
CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
CMOP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
CMOP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CMOP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CMOP.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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI World UCITS ETF (MXWS.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.

	MXWS.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.69	2.10	+0.58
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.68	2.58	+1.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.39	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.17	5.07	-0.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.68	11.63	+5.04
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current MXWS.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is comparable to the CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MXWS.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	MXWS.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.69	2.10	+0.58
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.98	0.73	+0.26
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	1.07	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	0.43	+0.57

Drawdowns

MXWS.L vs. CMOP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MXWS.L drawdown since its inception was -24.29%, smaller than the maximum CMOP.L drawdown of -28.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MXWS.L and CMOP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	MXWS.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.29%	-28.78%	+4.49%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.55%	-7.63%	+1.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.29%	-14.89%	-4.40%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.29%	-28.78%	+9.49%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.13%	-4.98%	+4.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.25%	-12.18%	+8.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.64%	3.34%	-1.70%

Volatility

MXWS.L vs. CMOP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco MSCI World UCITS ETF (MXWS.L) is 2.51%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) has a volatility of 6.19%. This indicates that MXWS.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.

Volatility by Period

	MXWS.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.51%	6.19%	-3.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.41%	16.17%	-8.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.16%	18.42%	-8.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.33%	16.59%	-3.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.45%	15.15%	+0.30%

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

Both MXWS.L and CMOP.L have an expense ratio of 0.19%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

MXWS.L vs. CMOP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither MXWS.L nor CMOP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MXWS.L and CMOP.L in my portfolio?

MXWS.L and CMOP.L have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, MXWS.L or CMOP.L?

Both ETFs have the same 0.19% expense ratio. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, MXWS.L or CMOP.L?

MXWS.L and CMOP.L have the same expense ratio: 0.19% per year.

What is the main difference between MXWS.L and CMOP.L?

MXWS.L is categorized as Global Equities, while CMOP.L is Commodities. MXWS.L tracks MSCI ACWI NR USD, while CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity.