CIL vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CIL (VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - CIL tracks the Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index while UMMA tracks the Dow Jones Islamic Market International Titans 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CIL returned 15.59%/yr vs 23.05%/yr for UMMA. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CIL charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

CIL vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) 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, CIL achieves a 5.44% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 33.52% return.

CIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 5.44%
• 6M: 8.27%
• 1Y: 16.20%
• 3Y*: 15.59%
• 5Y*: 7.45%
• 10Y*: 8.21%

UMMA

• 1D: 1.04%
• 1M: 14.73%
• YTD: 33.52%
• 6M: 37.91%
• 1Y: 54.63%
• 3Y*: 23.05%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CIL vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	5.44%	32.99%	3.76%	16.29%	-15.97%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	33.52%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.62%

Correlation

The correlation between CIL and UMMA is 0.54, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.54
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 10, 2022	0.68

The correlation between CIL and UMMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.54 (1 year) to 0.69 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CIL vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CIL	UMMA
Financial Services	24.8%	-
Industrials	18.4%	13.5%
Consumer Defensive	8.8%	5.6%
Consumer Cyclical	8.2%	8.1%
Healthcare	7.7%	16.6%
Utilities	6.6%	-
Basic Materials	6.6%	9.3%
Technology	6.4%	42.9%
Communication Services	5.8%	0.8%
Energy	4.6%	2.9%
Real Estate	2.2%	0.5%

Return for Risk

CIL vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CIL

CIL Risk / Return Rank: 73
CIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
CIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
CIL Omega Ratio Rank: 73
CIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
CIL Martin Ratio Rank: 86

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 78
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 78
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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.

CIL vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) 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.

	CIL	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	2.73	-0.67
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.96	3.60	-0.63
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.47	-0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.32	3.76	+0.55
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	18.62	14.73	+3.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CIL vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIL Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is comparable to the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIL 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

	CIL	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.07	2.73	-0.67
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.48	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	0.59	-0.15

Drawdowns

CIL vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIL drawdown since its inception was -36.27%, which is greater than UMMA's maximum drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIL and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CIL	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.27%	-34.17%	-2.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.60%	-14.93%	+10.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.96%	-18.73%	+6.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.89%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.27%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.58%	0.00%	-0.58%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.56%	-9.83%	+3.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.07%	3.82%	-2.75%

Volatility

CIL vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF (CIL) is 0.00%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 7.60%. This indicates that CIL 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

	CIL	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.00%	7.60%	-7.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.42%	17.23%	-12.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.26%	20.10%	-11.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.49%	20.56%	-4.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.18%	20.56%	-3.38%

CIL vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIL has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIL vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

CIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.67%, more than UMMA's 0.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CIL VictoryShares International Volatility Wtd ETF	1.67%	2.70%	3.46%	2.91%	2.41%	3.04%	1.73%	2.69%	2.85%	2.17%	2.34%	0.43%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.92%	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 CIL and UMMA in my portfolio?

CIL and UMMA have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CIL or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (7.60%) compared to CIL (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CIL dropped -36.27% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, CIL or UMMA?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 23.05% vs 15.59% for CIL. On fees, CIL is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, CIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CIL or UMMA?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 23.05% return vs 15.59%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CIL or UMMA?

CIL is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

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

CIL has the higher dividend yield at 1.67%, compared with 0.92% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between CIL and UMMA?

CIL tracks Nasdaq Victory International 500 Volatility Weighted Index, while UMMA tracks Dow Jones Islamic Market International Titans 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: Crestview and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for CIL and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.73 vs 2.07), 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.