UC15.L vs. CMOD.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

UC15.L (UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc) and CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) are both Commodities funds - UC15.L tracks the UBS CMCI while CMOD.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UC15.L returned 12.77%/yr vs 12.07%/yr for CMOD.L. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. UC15.L charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOD.L.

Performance

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (UC15.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

UC15.L is traded in GBp, while CMOD.L is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CMOD.L values have been converted to GBp using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UC15.L achieves a 21.49% return, which is significantly lower than CMOD.L's 25.06% return.

UC15.L

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: 0.83%
• YTD: 21.49%
• 6M: 20.94%
• 1Y: 31.35%
• 3Y*: 10.32%
• 5Y*: 12.77%
• 10Y*: 9.68%

CMOD.L

• 1D: -1.43%
• 1M: -0.15%
• YTD: 25.06%
• 6M: 21.83%
• 1Y: 37.96%
• 3Y*: 12.45%
• 5Y*: 12.07%
• 10Y*: —

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

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
UC15.L UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc	21.49%	2.57%	6.44%	-6.52%	29.97%	36.11%	-2.49%	5.31%	-5.25%	-5.42%
CMOD.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF	25.06%	7.88%	5.95%	-12.18%	28.11%	28.55%	-6.69%	2.58%	-4.90%	-9.94%

Correlation

The correlation between UC15.L and CMOD.L is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2017	0.83

The correlation between UC15.L and CMOD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UC15.L	CMOD.L
Technology	31.0%	5.6%
Communication Services	15.0%	12.3%
Energy	14.2%	-
Financial Services	10.9%	17.8%
Healthcare	9.8%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.3%	12.9%
Industrials	6.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	9.7%
Utilities	1.1%	-
Basic Materials	0.5%	35.8%
Real Estate	-	5.8%

Return for Risk

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

UC15.L

UC15.L Risk / Return Rank: 71
UC15.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
UC15.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
UC15.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
UC15.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
UC15.L Martin Ratio Rank: 75

CMOD.L

CMOD.L Risk / Return Rank: 70
CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
CMOD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CMOD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 69
CMOD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CMOD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (UC15.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.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.

	UC15.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	2.12	0.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.77	2.63	+0.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.39	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.23	5.07	+0.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.93	11.77	+2.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UC15.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is comparable to the CMOD.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UC15.L and CMOD.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

	UC15.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.12	2.12	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87	0.72	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.38	-0.04

Drawdowns

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UC15.L drawdown since its inception was -42.93%, which is greater than CMOD.L's maximum drawdown of -32.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UC15.L and CMOD.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	UC15.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.93%	-32.23%	-10.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.18%	-7.58%	+1.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.98%	-14.94%	+0.96%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-17.43%	-28.94%	+11.51%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-30.26%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.53%	-4.90%	+1.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.17%	-14.42%	-0.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.32%	3.28%	-0.96%

Volatility

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (IE) CMCI Composite SF UCITS ETF (USD) A-acc (UC15.L) is 5.07%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) has a volatility of 5.57%. This indicates that UC15.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMOD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UC15.L	CMOD.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.07%	5.57%	-0.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.34%	15.85%	-3.51%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.26%	18.19%	-2.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.69%	16.80%	-2.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.80%	15.38%	-0.58%

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

UC15.L has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than CMOD.L's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

UC15.L vs. CMOD.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither UC15.L nor CMOD.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UC15.L and CMOD.L in my portfolio?

UC15.L and CMOD.L have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, UC15.L or CMOD.L?

On fees, CMOD.L is cheaper at 0.19% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, UC15.L or CMOD.L?

CMOD.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for UC15.L.

What is the main difference between UC15.L and CMOD.L?

UC15.L tracks UBS CMCI, while CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for UC15.L and 0.19% for CMOD.L.