CIND.L vs. UC95.L

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CIND.L (iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc) and UC95.L (UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds tracking the Russell 1000 TR USD, from iShares and UBS respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CIND.L returned 12.77%/yr vs 9.06%/yr for UC95.L. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CIND.L charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for UC95.L.

Performance

CIND.L vs. UC95.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 UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC95.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

CIND.L is traded in USD, while UC95.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the UC95.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 higher than UC95.L's -0.49% return. Over the past 10 years, CIND.L has outperformed UC95.L with an annualized return of 12.77%, while UC95.L has yielded a comparatively lower 9.06% annualized 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%

UC95.L

• 1D: 0.75%
• 1M: -2.31%
• YTD: -0.49%
• 6M: 0.44%
• 1Y: 0.29%
• 3Y*: 8.93%
• 5Y*: 5.85%
• 10Y*: 9.06%

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

CIND.L vs. UC95.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%
UC95.L UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	-0.49%	6.66%	13.53%	5.72%	-6.94%	24.94%	3.50%	29.54%	-1.90%	15.82%

Correlation

The correlation between CIND.L and UC95.L is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.63
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2015	0.67

Over the past year, the correlation between CIND.L and UC95.L has dropped to 0.30 - well below their long-term average of 0.67, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

CIND.L vs. UC95.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CIND.L	UC95.L
Financial Services	27.4%	15.3%
Technology	18.2%	7.0%
Industrials	18.0%	12.9%
Healthcare	13.2%	9.2%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	7.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	16.1%
Basic Materials	3.8%	1.7%
Energy	2.3%	-
Communication Services	1.8%	3.0%
Real Estate	-	8.0%
Utilities	-	19.4%

Return for Risk

CIND.L vs. UC95.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: 51
CIND.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
CIND.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
CIND.L Omega Ratio Rank: 50
CIND.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
CIND.L Martin Ratio Rank: 49

UC95.L

UC95.L Risk / Return Rank: 10
UC95.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
UC95.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
UC95.L Omega Ratio Rank: 9
UC95.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
UC95.L Martin Ratio Rank: 10

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. UC95.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 UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC95.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	UC95.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.75	0.03	+1.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	0.11	+2.63
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.01	+0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.24	0.04	+2.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.13	0.09	+8.04
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. UC95.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CIND.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is higher than the UC95.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CIND.L and UC95.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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CIND.L	UC95.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.75	0.03	+1.72
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65	0.46	+0.19
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.80	0.65	+0.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.83	0.70	+0.13

Drawdowns

CIND.L vs. UC95.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CIND.L drawdown since its inception was -36.68%, roughly equal to the maximum UC95.L drawdown of -36.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CIND.L and UC95.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CIND.L	UC95.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.68%	-36.05%	-0.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.44%	-8.03%	-1.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.44%	-10.18%	-6.26%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.90%	-17.29%	-2.61%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.68%	-36.05%	-0.63%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.61%	-7.34%	+6.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.67%	-3.66%	-0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.61%	3.21%	-0.60%

Volatility

CIND.L vs. UC95.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares VII plc - iShares Dow Jones Indust Avg ETF USD Acc (CIND.L) and UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis (UC95.L) have volatilities of 3.18% and 3.32%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CIND.L	UC95.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.18%	3.32%	-0.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.08%	6.88%	+2.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.13%	9.33%	+2.80%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.37%	12.61%	+1.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.98%	14.11%	+1.87%

CIND.L vs. UC95.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CIND.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than UC95.L's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

CIND.L vs. UC95.L - Dividend Comparison

CIND.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while UC95.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.89%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
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%
UC95.L UBS ETF (IE) Factor MSCI USA Low Volatility UCITS ETF (USD) A-dis	1.89%	1.99%	1.61%	1.54%	1.29%	1.13%	1.79%	1.66%	1.64%	1.68%	1.37%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CIND.L and UC95.L in my portfolio?

CIND.L and UC95.L have a correlation of 0.30, 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 UC95.L?

On fees, UC95.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 UC95.L?

UC95.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 UC95.L?

Both ETFs track Russell 1000 TR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for CIND.L and 0.25% for UC95.L.