PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CIND.L vs. ISDU.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CIND.L vs. ISDU.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CIND.L (iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc) and ISDU.L (iShares MSCI USA Islamic UCITS ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds from iShares - CIND.L tracks the Russell 1000 TR USD while ISDU.L tracks the MSCI USA Islamic Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIND.L returned 12.77%/yr vs 12.60%/yr for ISDU.L. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CIND.L charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for ISDU.L.

Performance

CIND.L vs. ISDU.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 iShares MSCI USA Islamic UCITS ETF (ISDU.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CIND.L achieves a 5.75% return, which is significantly lower than ISDU.L's 23.62% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with CIND.L having a 12.77% annualized return and ISDU.L not far behind at 12.60%.

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%

ISDU.L

1D
0.83%
1M
13.22%
YTD
23.62%
6M
24.88%
1Y
42.22%
3Y*
20.40%
5Y*
14.50%
10Y*
12.60%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%
ISDU.L
iShares MSCI USA Islamic UCITS ETF		23.62%16.32%9.36%25.84%-11.90%29.59%6.85%20.62%-6.04%14.03%

Correlation

The correlation between CIND.L and ISDU.L is 0.65, 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

0.65

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

0.73

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

0.80

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 28, 2012

0.84

The correlation between CIND.L and ISDU.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.84 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

Sectors
CIND.L
ISDU.L

Financial Services

27.4%

-

Technology

18.2%
49.7%

Industrials

18.0%
7.7%

Healthcare

13.2%
10.8%

Consumer Cyclical

11.0%
8.8%

Consumer Defensive

4.2%
4.2%

Basic Materials

3.8%
5.5%

Energy

2.3%
12.3%

Communication Services

1.8%
0.4%

Real Estate

-

0.1%

Utilities

-

0.7%

Financial Services

CIND.L
27.4%
ISDU.L

-

Technology

CIND.L
18.2%
ISDU.L
49.7%

Industrials

CIND.L
18.0%
ISDU.L
7.7%

Healthcare

CIND.L
13.2%
ISDU.L
10.8%

Consumer Cyclical

CIND.L
11.0%
ISDU.L
8.8%

Consumer Defensive

CIND.L
4.2%
ISDU.L
4.2%

Basic Materials

CIND.L
3.8%
ISDU.L
5.5%

Energy

CIND.L
2.3%
ISDU.L
12.3%

Communication Services

CIND.L
1.8%
ISDU.L
0.4%

Real Estate

CIND.L

-

ISDU.L
0.1%

Utilities

CIND.L

-

ISDU.L
0.7%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc

iShares MSCI USA Islamic UCITS ETF

Often compared with CIND.L:
CIND.L vs. IYYCIND.L vs. IGSG.LCIND.L vs. DIACIND.L vs. QQQMCIND.L vs. SCHDCIND.L vs. VTCIND.L vs. XLG
Often compared with ISDU.L:
ISDU.L vs. ISDW.LISDU.L vs. SPUSISDU.L vs. IGDA.LISDU.L vs. SPWOISDU.L vs. BBUS.LISDU.L vs. BBSU.LISDU.L vs. FLXU.L

Return for Risk

CIND.L vs. ISDU.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
ISDU.L
ISDU.L Risk / Return Rank: 9090
Overall Rank
ISDU.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9191
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ISDU.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 9292
Sortino Ratio Rank
ISDU.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8888
Omega Ratio Rank
ISDU.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
ISDU.L Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
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. ISDU.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 USA Islamic UCITS ETF (ISDU.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.LISDU.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.75
3.24

-1.49

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.74
4.48

-1.74

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.56

-0.25

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.24

6.09

-3.85

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.13

20.40

-12.27

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

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

The current CIND.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is lower than the ISDU.L Sharpe Ratio of 3.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIND.L and ISDU.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.LISDU.LDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.75

3.24

-1.49

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.65

0.90

-0.24

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.80

0.78

+0.02

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.83

0.66

+0.17

Drawdowns

CIND.L vs. ISDU.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIND.L drawdown since its inception was -36.68%, roughly equal to the maximum ISDU.L drawdown of -37.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIND.L and ISDU.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CIND.LISDU.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.68%

-37.79%

+1.11%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.44%

-6.90%

-2.54%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.44%

-21.98%

+5.54%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.90%

-21.98%

+2.08%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.68%

-33.01%

-3.67%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.61%

0.00%

-0.61%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.67%

-4.20%

+0.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.61%

2.06%

+0.55%

Volatility

CIND.L vs. ISDU.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 USA Islamic UCITS ETF (ISDU.L) has a volatility of 5.02%. This indicates that CIND.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ISDU.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CIND.LISDU.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.18%

5.02%

-1.84%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.08%

9.93%

-0.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.13%

13.05%

-0.92%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.37%

16.17%

-1.80%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.98%

16.18%

-0.20%

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

CIND.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than ISDU.L's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIND.L vs. ISDU.L - Dividend Comparison

CIND.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while ISDU.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
ISDU.L
iShares MSCI USA Islamic UCITS ETF		0.61%0.74%0.90%1.10%1.52%1.01%1.39%1.37%1.49%1.38%1.34%1.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

CIND.L and ISDU.L have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, ISDU.L is cheaper at 0.30% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

ISDU.L is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CIND.L.

CIND.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while ISDU.L tracks MSCI USA Islamic Index. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CIND.L and 0.30% for ISDU.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIND.L and ISDU.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