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

Performance

CIND.L vs. SMEA.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 Core MSCI Europe UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) (SMEA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

CIND.L is traded in USD, while SMEA.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the SMEA.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 higher than SMEA.L's 8.60% return. Over the past 10 years, CIND.L has outperformed SMEA.L with an annualized return of 12.67%, while SMEA.L has yielded a comparatively lower 10.04% annualized 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%

SMEA.L

1D
0.57%
1M
0.65%
6M
5.81%
YTD
8.60%
1Y
20.01%
3Y*
15.69%
5Y*
9.97%
10Y*
10.04%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
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%27.62%
SMEA.L
iShares Core MSCI Europe UCITS ETF EUR (Acc)
8.60%35.38%1.96%19.34%-13.80%15.88%5.57%24.39%-14.58%25.86%

Correlation

The correlation between CIND.L and SMEA.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

0.59

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

0.66

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

0.67

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2010

0.69

The correlation between CIND.L and SMEA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

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


Sectors
CIND.L
SMEA.L

Financial Services

27.2%
23.3%

Technology

19.1%
9.6%

Industrials

18.1%
19.5%

Healthcare

12.8%
13.1%

Consumer Cyclical

11.0%
6.5%

Consumer Defensive

4.1%
8.3%

Basic Materials

3.7%
5.7%

Energy

2.2%
4.9%

Communication Services

1.8%
3.8%

Real Estate

-

0.8%

Utilities

-

4.7%

Financial Services

CIND.L
27.2%
SMEA.L
23.3%

Technology

CIND.L
19.1%
SMEA.L
9.6%

Industrials

CIND.L
18.1%
SMEA.L
19.5%

Healthcare

CIND.L
12.8%
SMEA.L
13.1%

Consumer Cyclical

CIND.L
11.0%
SMEA.L
6.5%

Consumer Defensive

CIND.L
4.1%
SMEA.L
8.3%

Basic Materials

CIND.L
3.7%
SMEA.L
5.7%

Energy

CIND.L
2.2%
SMEA.L
4.9%

Communication Services

CIND.L
1.8%
SMEA.L
3.8%

Real Estate

CIND.L

-

SMEA.L
0.8%

Utilities

CIND.L

-

SMEA.L
4.7%

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. SMEA.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: 6060
Overall Rank
CIND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6161
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CIND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
CIND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
CIND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
CIND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5656
Martin Ratio Rank

SMEA.L
SMEA.L Risk / Return Rank: 5151
Overall Rank
SMEA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5555
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SMEA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
SMEA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 5757
Omega Ratio Rank
SMEA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 4242
Calmar Ratio Rank
SMEA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 4646
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. SMEA.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 Core MSCI Europe UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) (SMEA.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.LSMEA.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.59

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.30

1.25

+0.05

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.14

1.71

+0.44

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.79

6.08

+1.70

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

The current CIND.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.66, which is comparable to the SMEA.L Sharpe Ratio of 1.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIND.L and SMEA.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...

Drawdowns

CIND.L vs. SMEA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIND.L drawdown since its inception was -36.68%, roughly equal to the maximum SMEA.L drawdown of -36.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIND.L and SMEA.L.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CIND.LSMEA.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-36.68%

-36.21%

-0.47%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.44%

-11.68%

+2.24%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.44%

-14.39%

-2.05%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.90%

-31.25%

+11.35%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.68%

-36.21%

-0.47%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.39%

-1.17%

+0.78%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.50%

-9.14%

+5.64%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.60%

3.28%

-0.68%

Volatility

CIND.L vs. SMEA.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc (CIND.L) is 2.46%, while iShares Core MSCI Europe UCITS ETF EUR (Acc) (SMEA.L) has a volatility of 3.76%. This indicates that CIND.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SMEA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CIND.LSMEA.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.46%

3.76%

-1.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.53%

12.38%

-2.85%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.19%

14.55%

-2.36%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.39%

20.98%

-6.59%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.93%

19.06%

-3.13%

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

CIND.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than SMEA.L's 0.12% expense ratio.


Dividends

CIND.L vs. SMEA.L - Dividend Comparison

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


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions


CIND.L and SMEA.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, SMEA.L is cheaper at 0.12% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

SMEA.L is cheaper with a 0.12% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CIND.L.

CIND.L is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while SMEA.L is Europe Equities. CIND.L tracks Russell 1000 TR USD, while SMEA.L tracks MSCI Europe NR EUR. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CIND.L and 0.12% for SMEA.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CIND.L and SMEA.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