CEFA vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CEFA (Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. CEFA is passively managed, while UMMA is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CEFA returned 15.05%/yr vs 21.92%/yr for UMMA. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CEFA charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

CEFA vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF (CEFA) 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, CEFA achieves a 7.16% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 29.52% return.

CEFA

• 1D: -2.25%
• 1M: 0.25%
• YTD: 7.16%
• 6M: 6.74%
• 1Y: 20.65%
• 3Y*: 15.05%
• 5Y*: 6.74%
• 10Y*: —

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)

CEFA vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CEFA Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF	7.16%	26.46%	5.03%	17.40%	-16.81%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	29.52%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%

Correlation

The correlation between CEFA and UMMA is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2022	0.82

The correlation between CEFA and UMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

CEFA vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CEFA	UMMA
Financial Services	24.0%	0.0%
Industrials	16.5%	12.1%
Technology	12.8%	48.2%
Healthcare	9.9%	14.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	7.3%
Consumer Defensive	6.2%	5.0%
Basic Materials	5.8%	8.8%
Energy	3.7%	2.4%
Communication Services	3.2%	1.0%
Utilities	2.9%	-
Real Estate	1.0%	0.4%

Return for Risk

CEFA vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CEFA

CEFA Risk / Return Rank: 39
CEFA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
CEFA Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
CEFA Omega Ratio Rank: 38
CEFA Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
CEFA Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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.

CEFA vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF (CEFA) 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.

	CEFA	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.29	2.24	-0.95
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	2.88	-1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.40	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.80	3.42	-1.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.57	13.07	-6.50

CEFA vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CEFA Sharpe Ratio is 1.29, which is lower than the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CEFA 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

CEFA vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CEFA drawdown since its inception was -31.97%, smaller than the maximum UMMA drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CEFA and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CEFA	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.97%	-34.17%	+2.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.54%	-14.93%	+3.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.45%	-18.73%	+3.28%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-31.97%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.29%	-5.07%	+2.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.00%	-9.73%	+2.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.15%	3.89%	-0.74%

Volatility

CEFA vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF (CEFA) is 5.65%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 12.08%. This indicates that CEFA 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

	CEFA	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.65%	12.08%	-6.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.62%	20.30%	-6.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.03%	22.74%	-6.71%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.73%	21.08%	-3.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.27%	21.08%	-3.81%

CEFA vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CEFA has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

CEFA vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

CEFA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.67%, more than UMMA's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CEFA Global X S&P Catholic Values Developed ex-U.S. ETF	2.67%	2.86%	3.26%	2.35%	2.35%	3.49%	0.84%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.95%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CEFA and UMMA in my portfolio?

CEFA and UMMA have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CEFA or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (12.08%) compared to CEFA (5.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CEFA dropped -31.97% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, CEFA or UMMA?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 21.92% vs 15.05% for CEFA. On fees, CEFA is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CEFA has been the lower-risk option at 5.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CEFA or UMMA?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 21.92% return vs 15.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CEFA or UMMA?

CEFA is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

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

CEFA has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 0.95% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between CEFA and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CEFA and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.29), 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.