EFAD vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EFAD (ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds - EFAD tracks the MSCI EAFE Dividend Masters Index while UMMA tracks the Dow Jones Islamic Market International Titans 100 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, EFAD returned 6.48%/yr vs 22.73%/yr for UMMA. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EFAD charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

EFAD vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF (EFAD) 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, EFAD achieves a 1.98% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 32.49% return.

EFAD

• 1D: -0.94%
• 1M: 1.01%
• YTD: 1.98%
• 6M: 2.48%
• 1Y: 2.83%
• 3Y*: 6.48%
• 5Y*: 0.93%
• 10Y*: 4.08%

UMMA

• 1D: -0.77%
• 1M: 14.49%
• YTD: 32.49%
• 6M: 35.58%
• 1Y: 53.55%
• 3Y*: 22.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EFAD vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EFAD ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF	1.98%	15.87%	-1.88%	11.91%	-19.28%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	32.49%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.62%

Correlation

The correlation between EFAD and UMMA is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 10, 2022	0.80

The correlation between EFAD and UMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

EFAD vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFAD	UMMA
Healthcare	18.1%	16.6%
Industrials	15.6%	13.5%
Technology	15.5%	42.9%
Financial Services	13.9%	-
Consumer Defensive	9.8%	5.6%
Basic Materials	8.7%	9.3%
Utilities	8.4%	-
Communication Services	6.4%	0.8%
Real Estate	3.6%	0.5%
Energy	1.3%	2.9%
Consumer Cyclical	-	8.1%

Return for Risk

EFAD vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFAD

EFAD Risk / Return Rank: 12
EFAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
EFAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
EFAD Omega Ratio Rank: 11
EFAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
EFAD Martin Ratio Rank: 13

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 75
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 75
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

EFAD vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF (EFAD) 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.

	EFAD	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.21	2.68	-2.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.39	3.53	-3.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.05	1.46	-0.41
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.28	3.60	-3.32
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.92	14.07	-13.15
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EFAD vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFAD Sharpe Ratio is 0.21, which is lower than the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFAD 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EFAD	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.21	2.68	-2.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.06	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.26	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.18	0.58	-0.40

Drawdowns

EFAD vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFAD drawdown since its inception was -35.74%, roughly equal to the maximum UMMA drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFAD and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFAD	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-35.74%	-34.17%	-1.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.18%	-14.93%	+4.75%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.35%	-18.73%	+5.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.74%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.74%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.70%	-0.77%	-2.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.32%	-9.82%	-0.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.09%	3.82%	-0.73%

Volatility

EFAD vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF (EFAD) is 3.94%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 7.64%. This indicates that EFAD 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

	EFAD	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.94%	7.64%	-3.70%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.67%	17.26%	-6.59%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.27%	20.10%	-6.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.39%	20.55%	-6.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.67%	20.55%	-4.88%

EFAD vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFAD has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFAD vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

EFAD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.82%, more than UMMA's 0.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EFAD ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF	2.82%	2.83%	2.64%	2.29%	1.76%	2.98%	1.49%	2.05%	2.37%	2.42%	2.88%	1.94%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.93%	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 EFAD and UMMA in my portfolio?

EFAD and UMMA have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFAD or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (7.64%) compared to EFAD (3.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFAD dropped -35.74% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, EFAD or UMMA?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 22.73% vs 6.48% for EFAD. On fees, EFAD is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EFAD has been the lower-risk option at 3.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFAD or UMMA?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 22.73% return vs 6.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFAD or UMMA?

EFAD is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

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

EFAD has the higher dividend yield at 2.82%, compared with 0.93% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between EFAD and UMMA?

EFAD tracks MSCI EAFE Dividend Masters Index, while UMMA tracks Dow Jones Islamic Market International Titans 100 Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EFAD and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.68 vs 0.21), 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.