XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L
XLKQ.L (Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc) and CMOD.L (Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - XLKQ.L is a Technology Equities fund tracking the S&P Select Sector Capped 20% Technology Index, while CMOD.L is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, XLKQ.L returned 26.60%/yr vs 12.07%/yr for CMOD.L. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. XLKQ.L charges 0.14%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for CMOD.L.
Performance
XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
XLKQ.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, XLKQ.L achieves a 23.81% return, which is significantly lower than CMOD.L's 25.06% return.
XLKQ.L
- 1D
- -2.23%
- 1M
- 12.27%
- YTD
- 23.81%
- 6M
- 21.73%
- 1Y
- 53.44%
- 3Y*
- 33.18%
- 5Y*
- 26.60%
- 10Y*
- 27.22%
CMOD.L
- 1D
- -1.43%
- 1M
- -0.15%
- YTD
- 25.06%
- 6M
- 21.83%
- 1Y
- 37.96%
- 3Y*
- 12.45%
- 5Y*
- 12.07%
- 10Y*
- —
XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
XLKQ.L Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc | 23.81% | 15.76% | 44.03% | 51.84% | -20.58% | 36.28% | 37.93% | 44.63% | 0.92% | 21.85% |
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 XLKQ.L and CMOD.L is -0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.06 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.07 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 13, 2017 | 0.17 |
The correlation between XLKQ.L and CMOD.L shifts across timeframes, from -0.06 (1 year) to 0.17 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
XLKQ.L
CMOD.L
Technology
Financial Services
Industrials
-
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Consumer Cyclical
-
Consumer Defensive
-
Energy
-
-
Healthcare
-
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
-
Technology
XLKQ.L
CMOD.L
Financial Services
XLKQ.L
CMOD.L
Industrials
XLKQ.L
CMOD.L
-
Basic Materials
XLKQ.L
-
CMOD.L
Communication Services
XLKQ.L
-
CMOD.L
Consumer Cyclical
XLKQ.L
-
CMOD.L
Consumer Defensive
XLKQ.L
-
CMOD.L
Energy
XLKQ.L
-
CMOD.L
-
Healthcare
XLKQ.L
-
CMOD.L
-
Real Estate
XLKQ.L
-
CMOD.L
Utilities
XLKQ.L
-
CMOD.L
-
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
XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L — Risk / Return Rank
XLKQ.L
CMOD.L
XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.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.
| XLKQ.L | CMOD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.71 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.96 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.46 | 1.39 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.24 | 5.07 | -1.84 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.42 | 11.77 | -3.34 |
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
| XLKQ.L | CMOD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.83 | 2.12 | +0.71 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 1.21 | 0.72 | +0.49 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 1.33 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.33 | 0.38 | +0.95 |
Drawdowns
XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum XLKQ.L drawdown since its inception was -28.74%, smaller than the maximum CMOD.L drawdown of -32.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XLKQ.L and CMOD.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| XLKQ.L | CMOD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -28.74% | -32.23% | +3.49% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -16.76% | -7.58% | -9.18% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.74% | -14.94% | -13.80% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.74% | -28.94% | +0.20% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -28.74% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.84% | -4.90% | +2.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.04% | -14.42% | +9.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 6.45% | 3.28% | +3.17% |
Volatility
XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Technology S&P US Select Sector UCITS ETF GBP Acc (XLKQ.L) has a higher volatility of 6.83% compared to Invesco Bloomberg Commodity UCITS ETF (CMOD.L) at 5.57%. This indicates that XLKQ.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CMOD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| XLKQ.L | CMOD.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.83% | 5.57% | +1.26% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 14.29% | 15.85% | -1.56% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.18% | 18.19% | +0.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.04% | 16.80% | +5.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 21.65% | 15.38% | +6.27% |
XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
XLKQ.L has a 0.14% expense ratio, which is lower than CMOD.L's 0.19% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
XLKQ.L vs. CMOD.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither XLKQ.L nor CMOD.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
XLKQ.L and CMOD.L have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XLKQ.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XLKQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for CMOD.L.
XLKQ.L is categorized as Technology Equities, while CMOD.L is Commodities. XLKQ.L tracks S&P Select Sector Capped 20% Technology Index, while CMOD.L tracks Bloomberg Commodity TR Index. Their fees differ too: 0.14% for XLKQ.L and 0.19% for CMOD.L.
Find the right allocation for XLKQ.L and CMOD.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