PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Bloomberg Enhanced Roll Yield Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ROLL.L) and L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF - USD Accumulating ETF (BCOM.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ROLL.L achieves a 23.85% return, which is significantly higher than BCOM.L's 20.90% return.


ROLL.L

1D
0.55%
1M
1.79%
6M
17.06%
YTD
23.85%
1Y
34.95%
3Y*
14.61%
5Y*
12.62%
10Y*

BCOM.L

1D
0.64%
1M
2.17%
6M
16.01%
YTD
20.90%
1Y
30.69%
3Y*
12.81%
5Y*
10.51%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
ROLL.L
iShares Bloomberg Enhanced Roll Yield Commodity Swap UCITS ETF
23.85%16.94%4.68%-2.22%16.67%27.69%0.83%5.26%-11.11%
BCOM.L
L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF - USD Accumulating ETF
20.90%16.19%4.43%-7.25%15.63%27.35%-2.99%5.14%-10.34%

Correlation

The correlation between ROLL.L and BCOM.L is 0.92, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.92

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.87

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

0.90

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 3, 2018

0.87

The correlation between ROLL.L and BCOM.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

ROLL.L
ROLL.L Risk / Return Rank: 7373
Overall Rank
ROLL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8383
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ROLL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7676
Sortino Ratio Rank
ROLL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8181
Omega Ratio Rank
ROLL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 6262
Calmar Ratio Rank
ROLL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
Martin Ratio Rank

BCOM.L
BCOM.L Risk / Return Rank: 5959
Overall Rank
BCOM.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6868
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BCOM.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
BCOM.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
BCOM.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5151
Calmar Ratio Rank
BCOM.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4949
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.

ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Bloomberg Enhanced Roll Yield Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ROLL.L) and L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF - USD Accumulating ETF (BCOM.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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.


ROLL.LBCOM.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.32

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.41

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.37

1.32

+0.06

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.50

2.10

+0.39

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.63

6.65

+1.98

ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ROLL.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is comparable to the BCOM.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ROLL.L and BCOM.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...

Drawdowns

ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ROLL.L drawdown since its inception was -26.90%, smaller than the maximum BCOM.L drawdown of -31.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ROLL.L and BCOM.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ROLL.LBCOM.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-26.90%

-31.65%

+4.75%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-13.94%

-14.33%

+0.39%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.94%

-14.33%

+0.39%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-20.45%

-26.27%

+5.82%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.46%

-8.29%

+0.83%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.17%

-11.63%

+2.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.04%

4.53%

-0.49%

Volatility

ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares Bloomberg Enhanced Roll Yield Commodity Swap UCITS ETF (ROLL.L) and L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF - USD Accumulating ETF (BCOM.L) have volatilities of 4.60% and 4.53%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ROLL.LBCOM.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.60%

4.53%

+0.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.48%

14.82%

-0.34%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.55%

16.93%

-0.38%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.16%

16.81%

-0.65%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.96%

15.35%

-0.39%

ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ROLL.L has a 0.28% expense ratio, which is higher than BCOM.L's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

ROLL.L vs. BCOM.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ROLL.L nor BCOM.L has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.92, ROLL.L and BCOM.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

On fees, BCOM.L is cheaper at 0.15% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

BCOM.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.28% for ROLL.L.

ROLL.L tracks iShares Bloomberg Enhanced Roll Yield Commodity Swap UCITS ETF, while BCOM.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity Index Total Return. They also come from different issuers: iShares and L&G. Their fees differ too: 0.28% for ROLL.L and 0.15% for BCOM.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ROLL.L and BCOM.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