CU1.L vs. FUQA.L

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CU1.L (iShares MSCI USA UCITS ETF USD (Acc)) and FUQA.L (Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - CU1.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, CU1.L returned 13.66%/yr vs 12.73%/yr for FUQA.L. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CU1.L charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FUQA.L.

Performance

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CU1.L) and Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUQA.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CU1.L achieves a 10.42% return, which is significantly higher than FUQA.L's 9.37% return.

CU1.L

• 1D: 0.76%
• 1M: 1.18%
• YTD: 10.42%
• 6M: 10.53%
• 1Y: 27.06%
• 3Y*: 19.52%
• 5Y*: 13.66%
• 10Y*: 15.47%

FUQA.L

• 1D: 1.00%
• 1M: 1.72%
• YTD: 9.37%
• 6M: 9.76%
• 1Y: 25.62%
• 3Y*: 15.82%
• 5Y*: 12.73%
• 10Y*: —

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

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CU1.L iShares MSCI USA UCITS ETF USD (Acc)	10.42%	9.22%	27.38%	20.66%	-10.62%	28.72%	16.30%	26.24%	-0.58%	7.28%
FUQA.L Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc	9.37%	8.56%	19.50%	11.85%	-0.00%	27.82%	8.23%	27.23%	1.10%	-13.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CU1.L and FUQA.L is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2017	0.90

The correlation between CU1.L and FUQA.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CU1.L	FUQA.L
Technology	38.5%	37.1%
Financial Services	11.5%	12.4%
Communication Services	10.2%	9.8%
Consumer Cyclical	9.6%	9.3%
Industrials	8.6%	8.7%
Healthcare	8.5%	9.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	4.5%
Energy	3.1%	3.1%
Utilities	2.1%	2.0%
Basic Materials	1.8%	2.2%
Real Estate	1.8%	2.0%

Return for Risk

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

CU1.L

CU1.L Risk / Return Rank: 81
CU1.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
CU1.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CU1.L Omega Ratio Rank: 86
CU1.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
CU1.L Martin Ratio Rank: 73

FUQA.L

FUQA.L Risk / Return Rank: 89
FUQA.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
FUQA.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
FUQA.L Omega Ratio Rank: 90
FUQA.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
FUQA.L Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CU1.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.

	CU1.L	FUQA.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.45	2.68	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.31	3.72	-0.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.51	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.51	4.24	-0.73
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.00	17.02	-5.02

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CU1.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.45, which is comparable to the FUQA.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CU1.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

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CU1.L drawdown since its inception was -98.42%, which is greater than FUQA.L's maximum drawdown of -27.34%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CU1.L and FUQA.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	CU1.L	FUQA.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.42%	-27.34%	-71.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.68%	-6.01%	-1.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.55%	-20.49%	-1.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.55%	-20.49%	-1.06%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-25.87%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.55%	0.00%	-0.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.01%	-7.08%	+3.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.25%	1.50%	+0.75%

Volatility

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI USA UCITS ETF USD (Acc) (CU1.L) has a higher volatility of 3.56% compared to Fidelity US Quality Income ETF Acc (FUQA.L) at 2.63%. This indicates that CU1.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FUQA.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CU1.L	FUQA.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.56%	2.63%	+0.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.72%	6.73%	+0.99%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.01%	9.53%	+1.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.18%	19.12%	+1.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.40%	22.41%	-4.01%

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CU1.L has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is higher than FUQA.L's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

CU1.L vs. FUQA.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither CU1.L nor FUQA.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CU1.L and FUQA.L in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, CU1.L and FUQA.L move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, CU1.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, CU1.L or FUQA.L?

FUQA.L is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.33% for CU1.L.

What is the main difference between CU1.L and FUQA.L?

CU1.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 CU1.L and 0.25% for FUQA.L.