ECH vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ECH (iShares MSCI Chile ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. ECH is passively managed, while UMMA is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ECH returned 14.56%/yr vs 21.92%/yr for UMMA. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ECH charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

ECH vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Chile ETF (ECH) and Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECH achieves a 0.19% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 29.52% return.

ECH

• 1D: -2.38%
• 1M: 0.47%
• YTD: 0.19%
• 6M: 1.60%
• 1Y: 35.27%
• 3Y*: 14.56%
• 5Y*: 10.67%
• 10Y*: 4.49%

UMMA

• 1D: -5.07%
• 1M: 4.45%
• YTD: 29.52%
• 6M: 30.57%
• 1Y: 50.76%
• 3Y*: 21.92%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ECH vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ECH iShares MSCI Chile ETF	0.19%	65.41%	-8.67%	9.01%	22.21%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	29.52%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%

Correlation

The correlation between ECH and UMMA is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2022	0.52

The correlation between ECH and UMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

ECH vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ECH	UMMA
Financial Services	21.8%	0.0%
Basic Materials	20.1%	8.8%
Industrials	15.7%	12.1%
Utilities	12.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	12.4%	7.3%
Real Estate	7.7%	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	7.6%	5.0%
Communication Services	1.7%	1.0%
Energy	-	2.4%
Healthcare	-	14.8%
Technology	-	48.2%

Return for Risk

ECH vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ECH

ECH Risk / Return Rank: 37
ECH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
ECH Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
ECH Omega Ratio Rank: 38
ECH Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
ECH Martin Ratio Rank: 30

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 70
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 71
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

ECH vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Chile ETF (ECH) and Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA). 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.

	ECH	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.38	2.24	-0.86
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	2.88	-0.96
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.40	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.80	3.42	-1.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.20	13.07	-8.87

ECH vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECH Sharpe Ratio is 1.38, which is lower than the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECH and UMMA, 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

ECH vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECH drawdown since its inception was -74.08%, which is greater than UMMA's maximum drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECH and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECH	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-74.08%	-34.17%	-39.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.74%	-14.93%	-4.81%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.59%	-18.73%	-6.86%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.59%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-66.89%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.55%	-5.07%	-20.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-37.48%	-9.73%	-27.75%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.42%	3.89%	+4.53%

Volatility

ECH vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI Chile ETF (ECH) is 8.96%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 12.08%. This indicates that ECH experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UMMA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECH	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.96%	12.08%	-3.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.27%	20.30%	+0.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.61%	22.74%	+2.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.64%	21.08%	+6.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.24%	21.08%	+6.16%

ECH vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECH has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECH vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

ECH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.97%, more than UMMA's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECH iShares MSCI Chile ETF	1.97%	2.01%	3.12%	4.77%	6.73%	5.49%	2.16%	2.47%	2.37%	1.42%	1.85%	2.13%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.95%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECH and UMMA in my portfolio?

ECH and UMMA have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ECH or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (12.08%) compared to ECH (8.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECH dropped -74.08% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, ECH or UMMA?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 21.92% vs 14.56% for ECH. On fees, ECH is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, ECH has been the lower-risk option at 8.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ECH or UMMA?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 21.92% return vs 14.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECH or UMMA?

ECH is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ECH or UMMA?

ECH has the higher dividend yield at 1.97%, compared with 0.95% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between ECH and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for ECH and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.38), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.