EFAV vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

EFAV (iShares MSCI EAFE Min Vol Factor ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. EFAV is passively managed, while UMMA is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EFAV returned 12.70%/yr vs 23.04%/yr for UMMA. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EFAV charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

EFAV vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI EAFE Min Vol Factor ETF (EFAV) 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, EFAV achieves a 2.87% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 33.37% return.

EFAV

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: -2.63%
• YTD: 2.87%
• 6M: 2.52%
• 1Y: 8.94%
• 3Y*: 12.70%
• 5Y*: 5.82%
• 10Y*: 6.44%

UMMA

• 1D: 2.27%
• 1M: 4.19%
• YTD: 33.37%
• 6M: 33.68%
• 1Y: 52.69%
• 3Y*: 23.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EFAV vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EFAV iShares MSCI EAFE Min Vol Factor ETF	2.87%	26.00%	5.30%	12.52%	-13.74%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	33.37%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%

Correlation

The correlation between EFAV and UMMA is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2022	0.69

The correlation between EFAV and UMMA shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.69 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EFAV vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EFAV	UMMA
Financial Services	19.4%	0.0%
Industrials	15.9%	12.1%
Healthcare	12.0%	14.8%
Consumer Defensive	11.9%	5.0%
Communication Services	9.6%	1.0%
Utilities	8.8%	-
Energy	8.3%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	5.0%	7.3%
Technology	4.6%	48.2%
Real Estate	3.0%	0.4%
Basic Materials	1.5%	8.8%

Return for Risk

EFAV vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFAV

EFAV Risk / Return Rank: 26
EFAV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
EFAV Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
EFAV Omega Ratio Rank: 24
EFAV Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
EFAV Martin Ratio Rank: 27

UMMA

UMMA Risk / Return Rank: 80
UMMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
UMMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
UMMA Omega Ratio Rank: 80
UMMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
UMMA Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

EFAV vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI EAFE Min Vol Factor ETF (EFAV) 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.

	EFAV	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.85	2.32	-1.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.25	2.97	-1.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.41	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.35	3.55	-2.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.35	13.53	-10.18

EFAV vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFAV Sharpe Ratio is 0.85, which is lower than the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFAV 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

EFAV vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFAV drawdown since its inception was -27.56%, smaller than the maximum UMMA drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFAV and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFAV	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.56%	-34.17%	+6.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.66%	-14.93%	+8.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.75%	-18.73%	+9.98%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.46%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-27.56%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.48%	-2.25%	-4.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.77%	-9.72%	+4.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.67%	3.91%	-1.24%

Volatility

EFAV vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI EAFE Min Vol Factor ETF (EFAV) is 3.06%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 11.87%. This indicates that EFAV 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

	EFAV	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.06%	11.87%	-8.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.53%	20.40%	-11.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.54%	22.78%	-12.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.82%	21.09%	-9.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.05%	21.09%	-8.04%

EFAV vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFAV has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than UMMA's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

EFAV vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

EFAV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.28%, more than UMMA's 0.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EFAV iShares MSCI EAFE Min Vol Factor ETF	3.28%	3.20%	3.24%	3.08%	2.53%	2.47%	1.33%	4.19%	3.34%	2.45%	3.94%	2.49%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.91%	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 EFAV and UMMA in my portfolio?

EFAV and UMMA have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFAV or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (11.87%) compared to EFAV (3.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFAV dropped -27.56% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, EFAV or UMMA?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 23.04% vs 12.70% for EFAV. On fees, EFAV is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, EFAV has been the lower-risk option at 3.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EFAV or UMMA?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 23.04% return vs 12.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EFAV or UMMA?

EFAV is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for UMMA.

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

EFAV has the higher dividend yield at 3.28%, compared with 0.91% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between EFAV and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: iShares and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for EFAV and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs 0.85), 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.