PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

FTAL.L vs. IMIB.L

Last updated Jul 17, 2026
Documentation

FTAL.L (SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF) and IMIB.L (iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)) are both Europe Equities funds - FTAL.L tracks the FTSE AllSh TR GBP while IMIB.L tracks the FTSE Italia AllShare TR EUR. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FTAL.L returned 8.17%/yr vs 15.60%/yr for IMIB.L. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FTAL.L charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for IMIB.L.

Performance

FTAL.L vs. IMIB.L - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

FTAL.L is traded in GBP, while IMIB.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the IMIB.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FTAL.L achieves a 8.11% return, which is significantly lower than IMIB.L's 16.30% return. Over the past 10 years, FTAL.L has underperformed IMIB.L with an annualized return of 8.17%, while IMIB.L has yielded a comparatively higher 15.60% annualized return.

FTAL.L

1D
0.49%
1M
0.76%
6M
4.78%
YTD
8.11%
1Y
20.62%
3Y*
15.81%
5Y*
10.86%
10Y*
8.17%

IMIB.L

1D
-0.30%
1M
-1.95%
6M
14.38%
YTD
16.30%
1Y
33.50%
3Y*
27.31%
5Y*
21.16%
10Y*
15.60%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

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

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FTAL.L
SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF		8.11%23.19%9.03%7.92%0.55%17.18%-9.96%19.28%-9.70%12.98%
IMIB.L
iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)		16.30%43.78%13.17%30.55%-3.59%18.30%1.46%24.85%-15.32%18.99%

Correlation

The correlation between FTAL.L and IMIB.L is 0.64, 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

0.64

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

0.65

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

0.69

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

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 28, 2012

0.69

The correlation between FTAL.L and IMIB.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.69 - a consistent structural relationship.

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

Sectors
FTAL.L
IMIB.L

Financial Services

24.7%
45.3%

Industrials

14.8%
11.4%

Healthcare

12.6%
1.2%

Consumer Defensive

12.0%
0.4%

Energy

10.1%
7.9%

Basic Materials

8.9%
0.5%

Consumer Cyclical

5.9%
9.9%

Utilities

4.6%
15.9%

Communication Services

2.9%
1.7%

Technology

1.8%
5.5%

Real Estate

1.8%
0.3%

Financial Services

FTAL.L
24.7%
IMIB.L
45.3%

Industrials

FTAL.L
14.8%
IMIB.L
11.4%

Healthcare

FTAL.L
12.6%
IMIB.L
1.2%

Consumer Defensive

FTAL.L
12.0%
IMIB.L
0.4%

Energy

FTAL.L
10.1%
IMIB.L
7.9%

Basic Materials

FTAL.L
8.9%
IMIB.L
0.5%

Consumer Cyclical

FTAL.L
5.9%
IMIB.L
9.9%

Utilities

FTAL.L
4.6%
IMIB.L
15.9%

Communication Services

FTAL.L
2.9%
IMIB.L
1.7%

Technology

FTAL.L
1.8%
IMIB.L
5.5%

Real Estate

FTAL.L
1.8%
IMIB.L
0.3%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

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

SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF

iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist)

Often compared with FTAL.L:
FTAL.L vs. CUKX.LFTAL.L vs. VUKG.LFTAL.L vs. EUEA.ASFTAL.L vs. REL.LFTAL.L vs. NG.LFTAL.L vs. LWDB.LFTAL.L vs. GBPG.L
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

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

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FTAL.L
FTAL.L Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
FTAL.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7171
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FTAL.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
FTAL.L Omega Ratio Rank: 7373
Omega Ratio Rank
FTAL.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
FTAL.L Martin Ratio Rank: 5454
Martin Ratio Rank
IMIB.L
IMIB.L Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
IMIB.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 8383
Sortino Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
IMIB.L Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
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.

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

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF (FTAL.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.

FTAL.LIMIB.LDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.83
2.20

-0.37

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
2.60
2.99

-0.39

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.39

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.29

3.24

-0.95

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.27

11.56

-4.30

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

The current FTAL.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the IMIB.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTAL.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

FTAL.L vs. IMIB.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTAL.L drawdown since its inception was -35.26%, smaller than the maximum IMIB.L drawdown of -70.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTAL.L and IMIB.L.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FTAL.LIMIB.LDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.26%

-70.29%

+35.03%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.95%

-10.28%

+1.33%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.17%

-15.58%

+2.41%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-13.17%

-24.06%

+10.89%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.26%

-36.68%

+1.42%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.79%

-3.26%

+1.47%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.25%

-33.78%

+29.53%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.83%

2.89%

-0.06%

Volatility

FTAL.L vs. IMIB.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF (FTAL.L) is 2.91%, while iShares FTSE MIB UCITS ETF EUR (Dist) (IMIB.L) has a volatility of 3.92%. This indicates that FTAL.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

FTAL.LIMIB.LDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.91%

3.92%

-1.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.77%

12.61%

-2.84%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.22%

15.13%

-3.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

12.72%

17.92%

-5.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.51%

19.27%

-4.76%

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

FTAL.L has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than IMIB.L's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

FTAL.L vs. IMIB.L - Dividend Comparison

FTAL.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while IMIB.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.76%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FTAL.L
SPDR FTSE UK All Share UCITS ETF		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)		3.76%3.83%4.53%3.77%3.90%3.15%1.44%3.41%0.00%0.61%2.82%2.15%

Frequently Asked Questions

FTAL.L and IMIB.L have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

On fees, FTAL.L is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

FTAL.L is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for IMIB.L.

FTAL.L tracks FTSE AllSh TR GBP, while IMIB.L tracks FTSE Italia AllShare TR EUR. They also come from different issuers: State Street and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for FTAL.L and 0.35% for IMIB.L.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for FTAL.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