PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ROBG.L vs. CMFP.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ROBG.L vs. CMFP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G ROBO Global Robotics and Automation UCITS ETF (ROBG.L) and L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ROBG.L achieves a 28.02% return, which is significantly higher than CMFP.L's 19.16% return. Over the past 10 years, ROBG.L has outperformed CMFP.L with an annualized return of 14.60%, while CMFP.L has yielded a comparatively lower 9.22% annualized return.


ROBG.L

1D
-1.53%
1M
9.31%
YTD
28.02%
6M
25.47%
1Y
57.61%
3Y*
13.63%
5Y*
8.16%
10Y*
14.60%

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)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ROBG.L
L&G ROBO Global Robotics and Automation UCITS ETF
28.02%14.68%-0.04%18.36%-25.90%17.05%40.88%25.34%-16.64%33.32%
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%-3.16%-6.17%

Correlation

The correlation between ROBG.L and CMFP.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

0.03

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

0.04

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.22

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 28, 2014

0.25

The correlation between ROBG.L and CMFP.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.12 (1 year) to 0.25 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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


Sectors
ROBG.L
CMFP.L

Industrials

45.6%

-

Technology

45.5%
5.1%

Healthcare

4.6%

-

Consumer Cyclical

2.9%
8.3%

Communication Services

1.4%
7.6%

Basic Materials

-

49.3%

Consumer Defensive

-

13.6%

Energy

-

-

Financial Services

-

10.7%

Real Estate

-

5.5%

Utilities

-

-

Industrials

ROBG.L
45.6%
CMFP.L

-

Technology

ROBG.L
45.5%
CMFP.L
5.1%

Healthcare

ROBG.L
4.6%
CMFP.L

-

Consumer Cyclical

ROBG.L
2.9%
CMFP.L
8.3%

Communication Services

ROBG.L
1.4%
CMFP.L
7.6%

Basic Materials

ROBG.L

-

CMFP.L
49.3%

Consumer Defensive

ROBG.L

-

CMFP.L
13.6%

Energy

ROBG.L

-

CMFP.L

-

Financial Services

ROBG.L

-

CMFP.L
10.7%

Real Estate

ROBG.L

-

CMFP.L
5.5%

Utilities

ROBG.L

-

CMFP.L

-

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

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

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

ROBG.L
ROBG.L Risk / Return Rank: 8282
Overall Rank
ROBG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ROBG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
ROBG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8080
Omega Ratio Rank
ROBG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
ROBG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8080
Martin Ratio Rank

CMFP.L
CMFP.L Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6666
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CMFP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
CMFP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
CMFP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8686
Calmar Ratio Rank
CMFP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G ROBO Global Robotics and Automation UCITS ETF (ROBG.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.


ROBG.LCMFP.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.94

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.39

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.18

4.81

-0.63

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

15.58

11.77

+3.81

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

The current ROBG.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.73, which is comparable to the CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ROBG.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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ROBG.LCMFP.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.73

2.16

+0.57

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.40

0.89

-0.49

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.72

0.66

+0.06

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.66

0.27

+0.39

Drawdowns

ROBG.L vs. CMFP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ROBG.L drawdown since its inception was -34.50%, smaller than the maximum CMFP.L drawdown of -50.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ROBG.L and CMFP.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ROBG.LCMFP.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.50%

-50.47%

+15.97%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.72%

-6.63%

-7.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-29.66%

-12.97%

-16.69%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.50%

-23.51%

-10.99%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.50%

-23.95%

-10.55%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.55%

-3.64%

+2.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.33%

-24.51%

+14.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.69%

2.71%

+0.98%

Volatility

ROBG.L vs. CMFP.L - Volatility Comparison

L&G ROBO Global Robotics and Automation UCITS ETF (ROBG.L) has a higher volatility of 7.77% compared to L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) at 4.82%. This indicates that ROBG.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMFP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ROBG.LCMFP.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

7.77%

4.82%

+2.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.14%

12.18%

+3.96%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

20.97%

14.73%

+6.24%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.44%

14.86%

+5.58%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.18%

13.92%

+6.26%

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

ROBG.L has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than CMFP.L's 0.30% expense ratio.


Dividends

ROBG.L vs. CMFP.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


ROBG.L and CMFP.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.

On fees, CMFP.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

CMFP.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for ROBG.L.

ROBG.L is categorized as Robotics, while CMFP.L is Commodities. ROBG.L tracks ROBO Global Robotics and Automation Index, while CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for ROBG.L and 0.30% for CMFP.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ROBG.L and CMFP.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