CGIC vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CGIC (Capital Group International Core Equity ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. CGIC is actively managed, while UMMA is passively managed. Over the past year, CGIC returned 30.79% vs 53.55% for UMMA. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CGIC charges 0.54%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

CGIC vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) 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, CGIC achieves a 12.85% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 32.49% return.

CGIC

• 1D: -1.04%
• 1M: 5.13%
• YTD: 12.85%
• 6M: 15.39%
• 1Y: 30.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

UMMA

• 1D: -0.77%
• 1M: 14.49%
• YTD: 32.49%
• 6M: 35.58%
• 1Y: 53.55%
• 3Y*: 22.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CGIC vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CGIC Capital Group International Core Equity ETF	12.85%	37.53%	-2.81%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	32.49%	26.65%	-4.04%

Correlation

The correlation between CGIC and UMMA is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 28, 2024	0.86

The correlation between CGIC and UMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

CGIC vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CGIC	UMMA
Financial Services	20.2%	-
Technology	16.7%	42.9%
Industrials	13.9%	13.5%
Basic Materials	8.8%	9.3%
Consumer Defensive	8.1%	5.6%
Consumer Cyclical	7.4%	8.1%
Communication Services	7.3%	0.8%
Energy	6.2%	2.9%
Healthcare	5.6%	16.6%
Utilities	4.1%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	0.5%

Return for Risk

CGIC vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CGIC

CGIC Risk / Return Rank: 58
CGIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
CGIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
CGIC Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CGIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
CGIC Martin Ratio Rank: 59

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 75
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 75
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

CGIC vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) 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.

	CGIC	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	2.68	-0.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	3.53	-0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.46	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.74	3.60	-0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.54	14.07	-3.53
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CGIC vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CGIC Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CGIC 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CGIC	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	2.68	-0.62
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.48	0.58	+0.90

Drawdowns

CGIC vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CGIC drawdown since its inception was -13.10%, smaller than the maximum UMMA drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CGIC and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CGIC	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.10%	-34.17%	+21.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.30%	-14.93%	+3.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.73%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.04%	-0.77%	-0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.54%	-9.82%	+7.28%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.93%	3.82%	-0.89%

Volatility

CGIC vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Capital Group International Core Equity ETF (CGIC) is 5.82%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 7.64%. This indicates that CGIC 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

	CGIC	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.82%	7.64%	-1.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.82%	17.26%	-4.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.01%	20.10%	-5.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	20.55%	-4.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.14%	20.55%	-4.41%

CGIC vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CGIC has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

CGIC vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

CGIC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.32%, more than UMMA's 0.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CGIC Capital Group International Core Equity ETF	1.32%	1.60%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.93%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CGIC and UMMA in my portfolio?

CGIC and UMMA have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CGIC or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (7.64%) compared to CGIC (5.82%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CGIC dropped -13.10% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, CGIC or UMMA?

On 1-year performance, UMMA leads with 53.55% vs 30.79% for CGIC. On fees, CGIC is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, CGIC has been the lower-risk option at 5.82%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CGIC or UMMA?

Over the 1-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 53.55% return vs 30.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CGIC or UMMA?

CGIC is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

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

CGIC has the higher dividend yield at 1.32%, compared with 0.93% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between CGIC and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: Capital Group and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for CGIC and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 vs 2.06), 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.