XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

XBCU.L (Xtrackers Bloomberg Commodity ex-Agriculture & Livestock Swap UCITS ETF 2C) and CMFP.L (L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF) are both Commodities funds - XBCU.L tracks the Bloomberg ex-Agriculture and Livestock 15/30 Capped 3 Month Forward while CMFP.L tracks the Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, XBCU.L returned 9.95%/yr vs 8.43%/yr for CMFP.L. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. XBCU.L charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for CMFP.L.

Performance

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Xtrackers Bloomberg Commodity ex-Agriculture & Livestock Swap UCITS ETF 2C (XBCU.L) and L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XBCU.L achieves a 23.15% return, which is significantly higher than CMFP.L's 18.87% return. Over the past 10 years, XBCU.L has outperformed CMFP.L with an annualized return of 9.95%, while CMFP.L has yielded a comparatively lower 8.43% annualized return.

XBCU.L

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: 0.54%
• YTD: 23.15%
• 6M: 26.23%
• 1Y: 45.54%
• 3Y*: 19.51%
• 5Y*: 15.55%
• 10Y*: 9.95%

CMFP.L

• 1D: -1.07%
• 1M: -2.02%
• YTD: 18.87%
• 6M: 19.48%
• 1Y: 30.75%
• 3Y*: 13.78%
• 5Y*: 12.10%
• 10Y*: 8.43%

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

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
XBCU.L Xtrackers Bloomberg Commodity ex-Agriculture & Livestock Swap UCITS ETF 2C	23.15%	26.09%	8.64%	-9.97%	20.96%	39.63%	-1.34%	7.54%	-11.30%	5.31%
CMFP.L L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF	18.87%	16.67%	5.08%	-6.76%	18.60%	33.39%	2.11%	8.16%	-8.64%	2.76%

Correlation

The correlation between XBCU.L and CMFP.L is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.84
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2010	0.76

The correlation between XBCU.L and CMFP.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.76 (all time) to 0.86 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XBCU.L	CMFP.L
Technology	41.0%	5.1%
Communication Services	16.1%	7.6%
Consumer Defensive	9.9%	13.6%
Industrials	9.4%	-
Healthcare	6.1%	-
Consumer Cyclical	5.1%	8.3%
Financial Services	4.2%	10.7%
Real Estate	3.4%	5.5%
Energy	3.4%	-
Basic Materials	1.4%	49.3%
Utilities	1.1%	-

Return for Risk

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

XBCU.L

XBCU.L Risk / Return Rank: 77
XBCU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
XBCU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
XBCU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 78
XBCU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
XBCU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 73

CMFP.L

CMFP.L Risk / Return Rank: 69
CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CMFP.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CMFP.L Omega Ratio Rank: 65
CMFP.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
CMFP.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.

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Xtrackers Bloomberg Commodity ex-Agriculture & Livestock Swap UCITS ETF 2C (XBCU.L) and L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.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.

	XBCU.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.54	2.16	+0.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.06	2.79	+0.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.38	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.85	4.81	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.65	11.40	+2.25
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XBCU.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.54, which is comparable to the CMFP.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XBCU.L and CMFP.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

	XBCU.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.54	2.16	+0.38
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83	0.79	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.60	0.62	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.27	0.20	+0.07

Drawdowns

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XBCU.L drawdown since its inception was -62.92%, roughly equal to the maximum CMFP.L drawdown of -60.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XBCU.L and CMFP.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	XBCU.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-62.92%	-60.78%	-2.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.34%	-6.36%	-2.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-12.95%	-10.43%	-2.52%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.83%	-22.09%	-5.74%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-37.15%	-30.49%	-6.66%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.70%	-4.35%	+1.65%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-29.73%	-31.22%	+1.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.33%	2.69%	+0.64%

Volatility

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Xtrackers Bloomberg Commodity ex-Agriculture & Livestock Swap UCITS ETF 2C (XBCU.L) is 4.24%, while L&G Longer Dated All Commodities UCITS ETF (CMFP.L) has a volatility of 5.15%. This indicates that XBCU.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMFP.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XBCU.L	CMFP.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.24%	5.15%	-0.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.16%	12.21%	+2.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.83%	14.18%	+3.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.65%	15.39%	+3.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.52%	13.67%	+2.85%

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

XBCU.L has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than CMFP.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

XBCU.L vs. CMFP.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither XBCU.L nor CMFP.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XBCU.L and CMFP.L in my portfolio?

XBCU.L and CMFP.L have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, XBCU.L or CMFP.L?

On fees, XBCU.L is cheaper at 0.29% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, XBCU.L or CMFP.L?

XBCU.L is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for CMFP.L.

What is the main difference between XBCU.L and CMFP.L?

XBCU.L tracks Bloomberg ex-Agriculture and Livestock 15/30 Capped 3 Month Forward, while CMFP.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity 3 Month Forward. They also come from different issuers: DWS and Legal & General. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for XBCU.L and 0.30% for CMFP.L.