UD06.L vs. CMOP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

UD06.L (UBS ETF (IE) Bloomberg Commodity CMCI SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc) and CMOP.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc) are both Commodities funds - UD06.L tracks the UBS BCOM Constant Maturity Commodity (GBP Hedged) while CMOP.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, UD06.L returned 11.38%/yr vs 12.08%/yr for CMOP.L. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. UD06.L charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOP.L.

Performance

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in UBS ETF (IE) Bloomberg Commodity CMCI SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc (UD06.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, UD06.L achieves a 19.96% return, which is significantly lower than CMOP.L's 24.84% return.

UD06.L

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: -2.88%
• YTD: 19.96%
• 6M: 20.45%
• 1Y: 32.58%
• 3Y*: 14.20%
• 5Y*: 11.38%
• 10Y*: —

CMOP.L

• 1D: -1.31%
• 1M: -2.74%
• YTD: 24.84%
• 6M: 23.47%
• 1Y: 38.91%
• 3Y*: 12.42%
• 5Y*: 12.08%
• 10Y*: —

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

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
UD06.L UBS ETF (IE) Bloomberg Commodity CMCI SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc	19.96%	17.64%	4.23%	-6.66%	16.62%	29.24%	0.29%	3.70%	-11.14%
CMOP.L Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc	24.84%	8.23%	6.01%	-12.72%	28.44%	28.71%	-7.11%	3.31%	-3.91%

Correlation

The correlation between UD06.L and CMOP.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	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2018	0.75

The correlation between UD06.L and CMOP.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	UD06.L	CMOP.L
Communication Services	55.9%	12.3%
Technology	16.1%	5.6%
Industrials	7.2%	-
Financial Services	6.2%	17.8%
Consumer Cyclical	5.2%	12.9%
Healthcare	3.1%	-
Utilities	2.2%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	9.7%
Energy	1.4%	-
Basic Materials	0.7%	35.8%
Real Estate	0.1%	5.8%

Return for Risk

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

UD06.L

UD06.L Risk / Return Rank: 76
UD06.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
UD06.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
UD06.L Omega Ratio Rank: 76
UD06.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
UD06.L Martin Ratio Rank: 74

CMOP.L

CMOP.L Risk / Return Rank: 67
CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
CMOP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
CMOP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CMOP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CMOP.L Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for UBS ETF (IE) Bloomberg Commodity CMCI SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc (UD06.L) and Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.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.

	UD06.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.38	2.10	+0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.03	2.58	+0.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.39	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.25	5.07	+0.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.83	11.63	+2.20
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current UD06.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.38, which is comparable to the CMOP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of UD06.L and CMOP.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

	UD06.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.38	2.10	+0.27
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77	0.73	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.60	0.43	+0.17

Drawdowns

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum UD06.L drawdown since its inception was -32.66%, which is greater than CMOP.L's maximum drawdown of -28.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for UD06.L and CMOP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	UD06.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.66%	-28.78%	-3.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.18%	-7.63%	+1.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.32%	-14.89%	+4.57%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.45%	-28.78%	+5.33%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.65%	-4.98%	+1.33%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.74%	-12.18%	+0.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.35%	3.34%	-0.99%

Volatility

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for UBS ETF (IE) Bloomberg Commodity CMCI SF UCITS ETF (hedged to GBP) A-acc (UD06.L) is 4.41%, while Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF Acc (CMOP.L) has a volatility of 6.19%. This indicates that UD06.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMOP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	UD06.L	CMOP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.41%	6.19%	-1.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.62%	16.17%	-4.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.64%	18.42%	-4.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.70%	16.59%	-1.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.71%	15.15%	-1.44%

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

UD06.L has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than CMOP.L's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

UD06.L vs. CMOP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither UD06.L nor CMOP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both UD06.L and CMOP.L in my portfolio?

UD06.L and CMOP.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, UD06.L or CMOP.L?

On fees, CMOP.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, UD06.L or CMOP.L?

CMOP.L is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for UD06.L.

What is the main difference between UD06.L and CMOP.L?

UD06.L tracks UBS BCOM Constant Maturity Commodity (GBP Hedged), while CMOP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity. They also come from different issuers: UBS and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for UD06.L and 0.19% for CMOP.L.