BGCG vs. UMMA
BGCG (Baillie Gifford International Concentrated Growth ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BGCG charges 0.72%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.
Performance
BGCG vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
BGCG
- 1D
- -1.57%
- 1M
- 2.59%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
UMMA
- 1D
- -0.88%
- 1M
- -5.39%
- 6M
- 15.00%
- YTD
- 22.54%
- 1Y
- 34.71%
- 3Y*
- 18.88%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 9.65%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $385.06K | $425.45K | $574.62K | |
| $1.43M | $1.79M | $1.87M |
BGCG vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
BGCG Baillie Gifford International Concentrated Growth ETF | -1.63% |
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF | -5.70% |
Correlation
The correlation between BGCG and UMMA is 0.65, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 1, 2026 | 0.65 |
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
BGCG vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank
BGCG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
UMMA
BGCG vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Baillie Gifford International Concentrated Growth ETF (BGCG) 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.
| BGCG | UMMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.26 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.33 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 7.91 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BGCG vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BGCG drawdown since its inception was -5.68%, smaller than the maximum UMMA drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGCG and UMMA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BGCG | UMMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -5.68% | -34.17% | +28.49% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -14.93% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -18.73% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.73% | -10.19% | +6.46% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.04% | -9.68% | +7.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 4.44% | — |
Volatility
BGCG vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BGCG | UMMA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 8.17% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 21.40% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.05% | 23.97% | +1.08% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.05% | 21.23% | +3.82% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.05% | 21.23% | +3.82% |
BGCG vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison
BGCG has a 0.72% expense ratio, which is higher than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
BGCG vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison
BGCG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UMMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGCG Baillie Gifford International Concentrated Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF | 0.99% | 1.02% | 0.91% | 1.09% | 1.77% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BGCG and UMMA have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, UMMA is cheaper at 0.65% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
UMMA is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.72% for BGCG.
UMMA has the higher dividend yield at 0.99%, compared with 0.00% for BGCG.
They also come from different issuers: Baillie Gifford and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.72% for BGCG and 0.65% for UMMA.
Find the right allocation for BGCG and UMMA
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