ACWX vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ACWX (iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. ACWX is passively managed, while UMMA is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ACWX returned 19.03%/yr vs 21.92%/yr for UMMA. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ACWX charges 0.32%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

ACWX vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX) and Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACWX achieves a 12.88% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 29.52% return.

ACWX

• 1D: -3.17%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 12.88%
• 6M: 12.78%
• 1Y: 29.85%
• 3Y*: 19.03%
• 5Y*: 8.31%
• 10Y*: 10.06%

UMMA

• 1D: -5.07%
• 1M: 4.45%
• YTD: 29.52%
• 6M: 30.57%
• 1Y: 50.76%
• 3Y*: 21.92%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ACWX vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ACWX iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF	12.88%	32.59%	5.17%	15.63%	-15.69%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	29.52%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%

Correlation

The correlation between ACWX and UMMA is 0.92, 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	0.92
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2022	0.90

The correlation between ACWX and UMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACWX vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACWX	UMMA
Technology	23.8%	48.2%
Financial Services	23.7%	0.0%
Industrials	13.6%	12.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.0%	7.3%
Basic Materials	6.6%	8.8%
Healthcare	6.5%	14.8%
Consumer Defensive	5.0%	5.0%
Communication Services	4.6%	1.0%
Energy	4.4%	2.4%
Utilities	2.9%	-
Real Estate	1.3%	0.4%

Return for Risk

ACWX vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACWX

ACWX Risk / Return Rank: 55
ACWX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
ACWX Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
ACWX Omega Ratio Rank: 55
ACWX Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
ACWX Martin Ratio Rank: 59

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 70
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 71
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

ACWX vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX) and Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ACWX	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	2.24	-0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	2.88	-0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.40	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	3.42	-0.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.05	13.07	-3.03

ACWX vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACWX Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACWX and UMMA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ACWX vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACWX drawdown since its inception was -60.40%, which is greater than UMMA's maximum drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACWX and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACWX	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.40%	-34.17%	-26.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.42%	-14.93%	+3.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.84%	-18.73%	+4.89%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.78%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.38%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.17%	-5.07%	+1.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.30%	-9.73%	-3.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.98%	3.89%	-0.91%

Volatility

ACWX vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF (ACWX) is 7.37%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 12.08%. This indicates that ACWX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UMMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACWX	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.37%	12.08%	-4.71%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.77%	20.30%	-5.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.74%	22.74%	-6.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.53%	21.08%	-4.55%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.27%	21.08%	-3.81%

ACWX vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACWX has a 0.32% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACWX vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

ACWX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.54%, more than UMMA's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACWX iShares MSCI ACWI ex U.S. ETF	2.54%	2.82%	2.97%	2.96%	2.68%	2.74%	1.88%	3.22%	2.60%	2.40%	2.77%	2.51%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.95%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACWX and UMMA in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.92, ACWX and UMMA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, ACWX or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (12.08%) compared to ACWX (7.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACWX dropped -60.40% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, ACWX or UMMA?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 21.92% vs 19.03% for ACWX. On fees, ACWX is cheaper at 0.32% per year. On volatility, ACWX has been the lower-risk option at 7.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACWX or UMMA?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 21.92% return vs 19.03%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACWX or UMMA?

ACWX is cheaper with a 0.32% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACWX or UMMA?

ACWX has the higher dividend yield at 2.54%, compared with 0.95% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between ACWX and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.32% for ACWX and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.79), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.