SPDM.L vs. CSP1.L
SPDM.L (iShares Physical Palladium ETC) and CSP1.L (iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SPDM.L is a Commodities fund tracking the London Palladium PM Fix, while CSP1.L is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SPDM.L returned 10.16%/yr vs 16.22%/yr for CSP1.L. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SPDM.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for CSP1.L.
Performance
SPDM.L vs. CSP1.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SPDM.L achieves a -13.23% return, which is significantly lower than CSP1.L's 10.49% return. Over the past 10 years, SPDM.L has underperformed CSP1.L with an annualized return of 10.16%, while CSP1.L has yielded a comparatively higher 16.22% annualized return.
SPDM.L
- 1D
- 0.55%
- 1M
- -9.27%
- YTD
- -13.23%
- 6M
- -7.76%
- 1Y
- 36.78%
- 3Y*
- -3.85%
- 5Y*
- -12.62%
- 10Y*
- 10.16%
CSP1.L
- 1D
- -0.29%
- 1M
- 5.91%
- YTD
- 10.49%
- 6M
- 10.33%
- 1Y
- 29.03%
- 3Y*
- 19.30%
- 5Y*
- 14.93%
- 10Y*
- 16.22%
SPDM.L vs. CSP1.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SPDM.L iShares Physical Palladium ETC | -13.23% | 62.20% | -17.63% | -41.15% | 5.58% | -19.60% | 19.23% | 47.36% | 25.02% | 42.70% |
CSP1.L iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF | 10.49% | 9.37% | 27.35% | 19.79% | -9.05% | 31.07% | 13.65% | 26.42% | 0.01% | 10.83% |
Correlation
The correlation between SPDM.L and CSP1.L is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.17 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.19 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 14, 2011 | 0.23 |
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
SPDM.L vs. CSP1.L — Risk / Return Rank
SPDM.L
CSP1.L
SPDM.L vs. CSP1.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Physical Palladium ETC (SPDM.L) and iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.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.
| SPDM.L | CSP1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.84 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.29 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.18 | 1.51 | -0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.10 | 4.06 | -2.96 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.37 | 14.94 | -12.57 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| SPDM.L | CSP1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.88 | 2.72 | -1.84 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.30 | 1.04 | -1.35 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.27 | 1.04 | -0.77 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.14 | 1.09 | -0.95 |
Drawdowns
SPDM.L vs. CSP1.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SPDM.L drawdown since its inception was -70.87%, which is greater than CSP1.L's maximum drawdown of -25.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SPDM.L and CSP1.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SPDM.L | CSP1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -70.87% | -25.48% | -45.39% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -35.67% | -7.12% | -28.55% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -40.59% | -20.77% | -19.82% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -70.87% | -20.77% | -50.10% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -70.87% | -25.48% | -45.39% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -56.18% | -0.29% | -55.89% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -25.10% | -3.32% | -21.78% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.54% | 1.94% | +14.60% |
Volatility
SPDM.L vs. CSP1.L - Volatility Comparison
iShares Physical Palladium ETC (SPDM.L) has a higher volatility of 10.84% compared to iShares Core S&P 500 UCITS ETF (CSP1.L) at 2.61%. This indicates that SPDM.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSP1.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SPDM.L | CSP1.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.84% | 2.61% | +8.23% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 37.16% | 7.16% | +30.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 44.70% | 10.70% | +34.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 41.85% | 14.31% | +27.54% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 37.57% | 15.58% | +21.99% |
SPDM.L vs. CSP1.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
SPDM.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is higher than CSP1.L's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
SPDM.L vs. CSP1.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither SPDM.L nor CSP1.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
SPDM.L and CSP1.L have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CSP1.L is cheaper at 0.07% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CSP1.L is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for SPDM.L.
SPDM.L is categorized as Commodities, while CSP1.L is S&P 500. SPDM.L tracks London Palladium PM Fix, while CSP1.L tracks S&P 500 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for SPDM.L and 0.07% for CSP1.L.
Find the right allocation for SPDM.L and CSP1.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