CIND.L vs. ISAC.L
CIND.L (iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc) and ISAC.L (iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) are both exchange-traded funds - CIND.L is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, while ISAC.L is a Global Equities fund tracking the MSCI ACWI Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIND.L returned 12.77%/yr vs 12.76%/yr for ISAC.L. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CIND.L charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for ISAC.L.
Performance
CIND.L vs. ISAC.L - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CIND.L achieves a 5.75% return, which is significantly lower than ISAC.L's 11.65% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CIND.L having a 12.77% annualized return and ISAC.L not far behind at 12.76%.
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%
ISAC.L
- 1D
- -0.62%
- 1M
- 4.39%
- YTD
- 11.65%
- 6M
- 13.33%
- 1Y
- 29.59%
- 3Y*
- 21.27%
- 5Y*
- 11.41%
- 10Y*
- 12.76%
CIND.L vs. ISAC.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 | 5.75% | 14.46% | 14.71% | 15.66% | -7.56% | 20.97% | 8.76% | 24.22% | -4.90% | 27.62% |
ISAC.L iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc) | 11.65% | 22.36% | 17.81% | 22.57% | -18.16% | 18.85% | 15.66% | 25.77% | -9.73% | 24.39% |
Correlation
The correlation between CIND.L and ISAC.L is 0.81, 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 | 0.81 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.80 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.84 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.86 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 28, 2012 | 0.85 |
The correlation between CIND.L and ISAC.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.
CIND.L vs. ISAC.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Financial Services
Technology
Industrials
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Basic Materials
Energy
Communication Services
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Financial Services
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Technology
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Industrials
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Healthcare
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Consumer Cyclical
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Consumer Defensive
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Basic Materials
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Energy
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Communication Services
CIND.L
ISAC.L
Real Estate
CIND.L
-
ISAC.L
Utilities
CIND.L
-
ISAC.L
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. ISAC.L — Risk / Return Rank
CIND.L
ISAC.L
CIND.L vs. ISAC.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 iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ISAC.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.L | ISAC.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.63 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.77 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.32 | 1.44 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.24 | 3.36 | -1.12 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.13 | 14.09 | -5.96 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CIND.L | ISAC.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.75 | 2.38 | -0.63 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.65 | 0.73 | -0.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.00 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.83 | 0.75 | +0.08 |
Drawdowns
CIND.L vs. ISAC.L - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CIND.L drawdown since its inception was -36.68%, which is greater than ISAC.L's maximum drawdown of -33.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIND.L and ISAC.L.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CIND.L | ISAC.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.68% | -33.82% | -2.86% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.44% | -8.77% | -0.67% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.44% | -16.56% | +0.12% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.90% | -26.07% | +6.17% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -36.68% | -33.82% | -2.86% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.61% | -0.62% | +0.01% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.67% | -4.69% | +1.02% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.61% | 2.09% | +0.52% |
Volatility
CIND.L vs. ISAC.L - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc (CIND.L) is 3.18%, while iShares MSCI ACWI UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (ISAC.L) has a volatility of 3.83%. This indicates that CIND.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISAC.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CIND.L | ISAC.L | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.18% | 3.83% | -0.65% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.08% | 9.77% | -0.69% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.13% | 12.42% | -0.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 14.37% | 15.57% | -1.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.98% | 15.95% | +0.03% |
CIND.L vs. ISAC.L - Expense Ratio Comparison
CIND.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than ISAC.L's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
CIND.L vs. ISAC.L - Dividend Comparison
Neither CIND.L nor ISAC.L has paid dividends to shareholders.
Frequently Asked Questions
CIND.L and ISAC.L have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, ISAC.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
ISAC.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CIND.L.
CIND.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while ISAC.L is Global Equities. CIND.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while ISAC.L tracks MSCI ACWI Index. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CIND.L and 0.20% for ISAC.L.
Find the right allocation for CIND.L and ISAC.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