RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RTWP.L (L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF) and BCOG.L (L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RTWP.L is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 2000 TR USD, while BCOG.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RTWP.L returned 8.43%/yr vs 12.42%/yr for BCOG.L. At a 0.19 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RTWP.L charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for BCOG.L.

Performance

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.L) and L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF (BCOG.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RTWP.L achieves a 16.93% return, which is significantly lower than BCOG.L's 24.98% return.

RTWP.L

• 1D: 1.41%
• 1M: 4.16%
• YTD: 16.93%
• 6M: 15.64%
• 1Y: 36.63%
• 3Y*: 14.81%
• 5Y*: 8.43%
• 10Y*: 12.05%

BCOG.L

• 1D: -1.35%
• 1M: -2.79%
• YTD: 24.98%
• 6M: 23.49%
• 1Y: 38.11%
• 3Y*: 12.52%
• 5Y*: 12.42%
• 10Y*: —

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

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RTWP.L L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF	16.93%	3.61%	11.18%	13.44%	-8.94%	20.68%	15.78%	20.59%	-7.77%	4.35%
BCOG.L L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF	24.98%	8.16%	6.13%	-12.32%	29.36%	29.04%	-6.24%	1.82%	-4.64%	1.28%

Correlation

The correlation between RTWP.L and BCOG.L is -0.18, 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	-0.18
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.00
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2017	0.19

The correlation between RTWP.L and BCOG.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to 0.19 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RTWP.L	BCOG.L
Technology	20.0%	5.6%
Industrials	17.9%	-
Financial Services	15.3%	17.8%
Healthcare	14.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	12.9%
Real Estate	5.9%	5.8%
Energy	5.3%	-
Basic Materials	4.6%	35.8%
Utilities	2.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	9.7%
Communication Services	2.4%	12.3%

Return for Risk

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

RTWP.L

RTWP.L Risk / Return Rank: 75
RTWP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
RTWP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
RTWP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 66
RTWP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
RTWP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 78

BCOG.L

BCOG.L Risk / Return Rank: 64
BCOG.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
BCOG.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
BCOG.L Omega Ratio Rank: 62
BCOG.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
BCOG.L Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.L) and L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF (BCOG.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.

	RTWP.L	BCOG.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	2.05	+0.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.18	2.56	+0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.37	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.93	4.43	+0.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.84	10.23	+4.61
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RTWP.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is comparable to the BCOG.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RTWP.L and BCOG.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

	RTWP.L	BCOG.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.34	2.05	+0.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.44	0.74	-0.30
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.59	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.70	0.49	+0.20

Drawdowns

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RTWP.L drawdown since its inception was -35.32%, which is greater than BCOG.L's maximum drawdown of -28.15%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RTWP.L and BCOG.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	RTWP.L	BCOG.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.32%	-28.15%	-7.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.40%	-8.57%	+1.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.77%	-14.48%	-14.29%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.77%	-27.76%	-1.01%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.32%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-5.16%	+5.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.05%	-11.67%	+4.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	3.72%	-1.26%

Volatility

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for L&G Russell 2000 US Small Cap UCITS ETF (RTWP.L) is 4.55%, while L&G All Commodities UCITS ETF (BCOG.L) has a volatility of 6.06%. This indicates that RTWP.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BCOG.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RTWP.L	BCOG.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.55%	6.06%	-1.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.96%	15.89%	-4.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.61%	18.51%	-2.90%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.25%	16.89%	+2.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.40%	15.71%	+4.69%

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

RTWP.L has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than BCOG.L's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

RTWP.L vs. BCOG.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither RTWP.L nor BCOG.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RTWP.L and BCOG.L in my portfolio?

RTWP.L and BCOG.L have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, RTWP.L or BCOG.L?

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

Which ETF is cheaper, RTWP.L or BCOG.L?

BCOG.L is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for RTWP.L.

What is the main difference between RTWP.L and BCOG.L?

RTWP.L is categorized as Small Cap Blend Equities, while BCOG.L is Commodities. RTWP.L tracks Russell 2000 TR USD, while BCOG.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for RTWP.L and 0.15% for BCOG.L.