PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

CUKS.L (iShares MSCI UK Small Cap UCITS ETF (Acc)) and IMIB.L (iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)) are both Europe Equities funds from iShares - CUKS.L tracks the FTSE Small Cap Ex Invest Trust TR GBP while IMIB.L tracks the FTSE Italia AllShare TR EUR. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, CUKS.L returned 6.40%/yr vs 17.41%/yr for IMIB.L. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CUKS.L charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for IMIB.L.

Performance

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI UK Small Cap UCITS ETF (Acc) (CUKS.L) and iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IMIB.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CUKS.L achieves a 3.89% return, which is significantly lower than IMIB.L's 16.85% return. Over the past 10 years, CUKS.L has underperformed IMIB.L with an annualized return of 6.40%, while IMIB.L has yielded a comparatively higher 17.41% annualized return.

CUKS.L

1D
0.53%
1M
0.27%
YTD
3.89%
6M
4.43%
1Y
10.46%
3Y*
12.19%
5Y*
1.72%
10Y*
6.40%

IMIB.L

1D
0.06%
1M
3.20%
YTD
16.85%
6M
17.51%
1Y
38.30%
3Y*
29.66%
5Y*
20.48%
10Y*
17.41%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CUKS.L
iShares MSCI UK Small Cap UCITS ETF (Acc)		3.89%14.90%5.74%9.76%-22.81%14.33%-6.24%29.73%-15.36%20.13%
IMIB.L
iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)		16.85%43.78%13.17%30.55%-3.59%18.30%1.46%24.85%-12.68%20.95%

Correlation

The correlation between CUKS.L and IMIB.L is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.49

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

0.59

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

0.64

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

0.58

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2010

0.59

The correlation between CUKS.L and IMIB.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.49 (1 year) to 0.64 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
CUKS.L
IMIB.L

Financial Services

23.3%
45.3%

Industrials

20.6%
11.4%

Consumer Cyclical

18.1%
9.9%

Real Estate

8.5%
0.3%

Communication Services

6.8%
1.7%

Basic Materials

6.0%
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

3.9%
0.4%

Technology

3.8%
5.5%

Energy

3.3%
7.9%

Healthcare

3.1%
1.2%

Utilities

2.6%
15.9%

Financial Services

CUKS.L
23.3%
IMIB.L
45.3%

Industrials

CUKS.L
20.6%
IMIB.L
11.4%

Consumer Cyclical

CUKS.L
18.1%
IMIB.L
9.9%

Real Estate

CUKS.L
8.5%
IMIB.L
0.3%

Communication Services

CUKS.L
6.8%
IMIB.L
1.7%

Basic Materials

CUKS.L
6.0%
IMIB.L
0.5%

Consumer Defensive

CUKS.L
3.9%
IMIB.L
0.4%

Technology

CUKS.L
3.8%
IMIB.L
5.5%

Energy

CUKS.L
3.3%
IMIB.L
7.9%

Healthcare

CUKS.L
3.1%
IMIB.L
1.2%

Utilities

CUKS.L
2.6%
IMIB.L
15.9%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

iShares MSCI UK Small Cap UCITS ETF (Acc)

iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)

Often compared with CUKS.L:
CUKS.L vs. VMIG.LCUKS.L vs. MIDD.LCUKS.L vs. IITU.LCUKS.L vs. CUKX.LCUKS.L vs. AEICUKS.L vs. VUKG.LCUKS.L vs. AVUV
Often compared with IMIB.L:
IMIB.L vs. ESIF.LIMIB.L vs. SPMOIMIB.L vs. X7PP.LIMIB.L vs. VOOIMIB.L vs. BNKE.LIMIB.L vs. PSRE.LIMIB.L vs. EEIP.L

Return for Risk

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
CUKS.L
CUKS.L Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
CUKS.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CUKS.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
CUKS.L Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
CUKS.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 2020
Calmar Ratio Rank
CUKS.L Martin Ratio Rank: 2323
Martin Ratio Rank
IMIB.L
IMIB.L Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
IMIB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8585
Omega Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7979
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.

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI UK Small Cap UCITS ETF (Acc) (CUKS.L) and iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IMIB.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.

CUKS.LIMIB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
0.76
2.53

-1.77

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.19
3.41

-2.22

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.15

1.44

-0.30

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.85

3.71

-2.86

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.66

13.54

-10.87

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CUKS.L Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the IMIB.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.53. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CUKS.L and IMIB.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

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CUKS.L drawdown since its inception was -42.42%, smaller than the maximum IMIB.L drawdown of -70.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CUKS.L and IMIB.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

CUKS.LIMIB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.42%

-70.29%

+27.87%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.28%

-10.28%

-2.00%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.88%

-15.58%

-1.30%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.35%

-24.06%

-11.29%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.42%

-36.68%

-5.74%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.89%

-2.80%

-0.09%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.96%

-32.96%

+24.00%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.92%

2.82%

+1.10%

Volatility

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI UK Small Cap UCITS ETF (Acc) (CUKS.L) is 3.73%, while iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IMIB.L) has a volatility of 4.03%. This indicates that CUKS.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IMIB.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

CUKS.LIMIB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.73%

4.03%

-0.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.40%

12.33%

-0.93%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.64%

15.06%

-1.42%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.02%

17.94%

-1.92%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.75%

19.35%

-2.60%

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

CUKS.L has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is higher than IMIB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

CUKS.L vs. IMIB.L - Dividend Comparison

CUKS.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IMIB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.75%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
CUKS.L
iShares MSCI UK Small Cap UCITS ETF (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%
IMIB.L
iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)		3.75%3.83%4.53%3.77%3.90%3.15%1.44%3.41%3.25%2.29%2.82%2.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

CUKS.L and IMIB.L have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, IMIB.L is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

IMIB.L is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for CUKS.L.

CUKS.L tracks FTSE Small Cap Ex Invest Trust TR GBP, while IMIB.L tracks FTSE Italia AllShare TR EUR. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for CUKS.L and 0.35% for IMIB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CUKS.L and IMIB.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