CIND.L vs. FUQA.L

Last updated Jul 16, 2026

CIND.L (iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc) and FUQA.L (Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - CIND.L tracks the Russell 1000 TR USD while FUQA.L tracks the Fidelity US Quality Income Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CIND.L returned 9.99%/yr vs 11.93%/yr for FUQA.L. A 0.78 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CIND.L charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FUQA.L.

Performance

CIND.L vs. FUQA.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 Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUQA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CIND.L is traded in USD, while FUQA.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the FUQA.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 9.38% return, which is significantly lower than FUQA.L's 10.21% return.

CIND.L

• 1D: 0.34%
• 1M: 1.41%
• 6M: 7.69%
• YTD: 9.38%
• 1Y: 20.31%
• 3Y*: 16.50%
• 5Y*: 9.99%
• 10Y*: 12.67%

FUQA.L

• 1D: 0.87%
• 1M: 1.55%
• 6M: 9.85%
• YTD: 10.21%
• 1Y: 21.39%
• 3Y*: 17.06%
• 5Y*: 11.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

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

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CIND.L iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc	9.38%	14.46%	14.71%	15.66%	-7.56%	20.97%	8.76%	24.22%	-4.90%	22.03%
FUQA.L Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc	10.21%	16.75%	17.51%	17.75%	-10.69%	26.66%	11.54%	32.33%	-4.62%	-7.43%

Correlation

The correlation between CIND.L and FUQA.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	0.75
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.81
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2017	0.78

The correlation between CIND.L and FUQA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.72 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors	CIND.L	FUQA.L
Financial Services	27.2%	12.9%
Technology	19.1%	35.3%
Industrials	18.1%	8.9%
Healthcare	12.8%	9.8%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	9.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	4.8%
Basic Materials	3.7%	2.2%
Energy	2.2%	3.1%
Communication Services	1.8%	9.6%
Real Estate	-	2.0%
Utilities	-	2.1%

Return for Risk

CIND.L vs. FUQA.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: 60
CIND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
CIND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
CIND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 61
CIND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
CIND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 56

FUQA.L

FUQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 82
FUQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
FUQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
FUQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 82
FUQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FUQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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. FUQA.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 Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUQA.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.

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.

	CIND.L	FUQA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.66	2.12	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	3.24	-0.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.38	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.14	2.67	-0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.79	11.69	-3.90

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

The current CIND.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the FUQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIND.L and FUQA.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.

Drawdowns

CIND.L vs. FUQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIND.L drawdown since its inception was -36.68%, roughly equal to the maximum FUQA.L drawdown of -35.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIND.L and FUQA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CIND.L	FUQA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.68%	-35.38%	-1.30%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.44%	-7.97%	-1.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.44%	-19.14%	+2.70%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.90%	-20.19%	+0.29%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.39%	0.00%	-0.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.50%	-6.77%	+3.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.60%	1.83%	+0.77%

Volatility

CIND.L vs. FUQA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc (CIND.L) is 2.46%, while Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUQA.L) has a volatility of 2.68%. This indicates that CIND.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FUQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CIND.L	FUQA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.46%	2.68%	-0.22%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.53%	7.52%	+2.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.19%	10.05%	+2.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.39%	19.97%	-5.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.93%	23.00%	-7.07%

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

CIND.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than FUQA.L's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIND.L vs. FUQA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CIND.L nor FUQA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CIND.L and FUQA.L in my portfolio?

CIND.L and FUQA.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.

Which ETF is better, CIND.L or FUQA.L?

On fees, FUQA.L is cheaper at 0.25% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CIND.L or FUQA.L?

FUQA.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CIND.L.

What is the main difference between CIND.L and FUQA.L?

CIND.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while FUQA.L tracks Fidelity US Quality Income Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CIND.L and 0.25% for FUQA.L.