PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CIND.L vs. BBDD.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc (CIND.L) and JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist) (BBDD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CIND.L is traded in USD, while BBDD.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the BBDD.L values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIND.L achieves a 5.75% return, which is significantly lower than BBDD.L's 9.98% return.


CIND.L

1D
-0.61%
1M
2.56%
YTD
5.75%
6M
7.17%
1Y
21.24%
3Y*
16.20%
5Y*
9.37%
10Y*
12.77%

BBDD.L

1D
-0.49%
1M
4.78%
YTD
9.98%
6M
10.71%
1Y
27.70%
3Y*
22.41%
5Y*
13.29%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022202120202019
CIND.L
iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc
5.75%14.46%14.71%15.66%-7.56%20.97%8.76%10.34%
BBDD.L
JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist)
9.98%17.66%25.08%27.09%-20.02%28.05%19.67%13.32%

Correlation

The correlation between CIND.L and BBDD.L is 0.72, 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

0.72

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.74

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.80

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 11, 2019

0.82

The correlation between CIND.L and BBDD.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.72 (1 year) to 0.82 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CIND.L
BBDD.L

Financial Services

27.4%
11.8%

Technology

18.2%
35.4%

Industrials

18.0%
8.4%

Healthcare

13.2%
8.6%

Consumer Cyclical

11.0%
10.1%

Consumer Defensive

4.2%
4.8%

Basic Materials

3.8%
1.7%

Energy

2.3%
3.6%

Communication Services

1.8%
11.5%

Real Estate

-

1.8%

Utilities

-

2.3%

Financial Services

CIND.L
27.4%
BBDD.L
11.8%

Technology

CIND.L
18.2%
BBDD.L
35.4%

Industrials

CIND.L
18.0%
BBDD.L
8.4%

Healthcare

CIND.L
13.2%
BBDD.L
8.6%

Consumer Cyclical

CIND.L
11.0%
BBDD.L
10.1%

Consumer Defensive

CIND.L
4.2%
BBDD.L
4.8%

Basic Materials

CIND.L
3.8%
BBDD.L
1.7%

Energy

CIND.L
2.3%
BBDD.L
3.6%

Communication Services

CIND.L
1.8%
BBDD.L
11.5%

Real Estate

CIND.L

-

BBDD.L
1.8%

Utilities

CIND.L

-

BBDD.L
2.3%

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

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L — Risk / Return Rank

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

CIND.L
CIND.L Risk / Return Rank: 5151
Overall Rank
CIND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
CIND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4949
Martin Ratio Rank

BBDD.L
BBDD.L Risk / Return Rank: 7777
Overall Rank
BBDD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8282
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BBDD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8080
Sortino Ratio Rank
BBDD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8383
Omega Ratio Rank
BBDD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
BBDD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc (CIND.L) and JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist) (BBDD.L). 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.


CIND.LBBDD.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.73

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.84

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.44

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.24

3.02

-0.78

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.13

12.93

-4.80

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIND.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is comparable to the BBDD.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.48. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIND.L and BBDD.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CIND.LBBDD.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.75

2.48

-0.73

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.65

0.84

-0.19

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.80

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.83

0.91

-0.08

Drawdowns

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIND.L drawdown since its inception was -36.68%, which is greater than BBDD.L's maximum drawdown of -33.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIND.L and BBDD.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CIND.LBBDD.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.68%

-33.67%

-3.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.44%

-9.13%

-0.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.44%

-19.47%

+3.03%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.90%

-26.16%

+6.26%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.68%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.61%

-0.49%

-0.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.67%

-5.42%

+1.75%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.61%

2.14%

+0.47%

Volatility

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc (CIND.L) has a higher volatility of 3.18% compared to JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist) (BBDD.L) at 2.45%. This indicates that CIND.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BBDD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CIND.LBBDD.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.18%

2.45%

+0.73%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.08%

8.03%

+1.05%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.13%

11.16%

+0.97%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.37%

15.81%

-1.44%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.98%

17.52%

-1.54%

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIND.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than BBDD.L's 0.05% expense ratio.


Dividends

CIND.L vs. BBDD.L - Dividend Comparison

CIND.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while BBDD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
BBDD.L
JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Equity UCITS ETF (Dist)
0.99%1.12%0.99%1.31%1.44%0.94%1.46%0.79%
CIND.L
iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc
0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CIND.L and BBDD.L have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, BBDD.L is cheaper at 0.05% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

BBDD.L is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CIND.L.

Both ETFs track Russell 1000 TR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CIND.L and 0.05% for BBDD.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIND.L and BBDD.L

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