GSID vs. UMMA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

GSID (Goldman Sachs MarketBeta International Equity ETF) and UMMA (Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF) are both Foreign Large Cap Equities funds. GSID is passively managed, while UMMA is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, GSID returned 16.73%/yr vs 21.92%/yr for UMMA. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GSID charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for UMMA.

Performance

GSID vs. UMMA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goldman Sachs MarketBeta International Equity ETF (GSID) 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, GSID achieves a 8.62% return, which is significantly lower than UMMA's 29.52% return.

GSID

• 1D: -1.85%
• 1M: 0.14%
• YTD: 8.62%
• 6M: 8.40%
• 1Y: 22.62%
• 3Y*: 16.73%
• 5Y*: 8.35%
• 10Y*: —

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)

GSID vs. UMMA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
GSID Goldman Sachs MarketBeta International Equity ETF	8.62%	31.77%	3.60%	17.63%	-14.48%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	29.52%	26.65%	4.67%	18.84%	-21.31%

Correlation

The correlation between GSID and UMMA is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2022	0.86

The correlation between GSID and UMMA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

GSID vs. UMMA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GSID	UMMA
Financial Services	24.2%	0.0%
Industrials	19.4%	12.1%
Technology	11.4%	48.2%
Healthcare	10.2%	14.8%
Consumer Cyclical	7.9%	7.3%
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	5.0%
Basic Materials	6.2%	8.8%
Communication Services	4.7%	1.0%
Energy	3.8%	2.4%
Utilities	3.7%	-
Real Estate	2.1%	0.4%

Return for Risk

GSID vs. UMMA — Risk / Return Rank

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

GSID

GSID Risk / Return Rank: 44
GSID Sharpe Ratio Rank: 44
GSID Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
GSID Omega Ratio Rank: 42
GSID Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
GSID Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

GSID vs. UMMA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goldman Sachs MarketBeta International Equity ETF (GSID) 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.

	GSID	UMMA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.45	2.24	-0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	2.88	-0.78
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.40	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.00	3.42	-1.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.43	13.07	-5.64

GSID vs. UMMA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GSID Sharpe Ratio is 1.45, which is lower than the UMMA Sharpe Ratio of 2.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GSID 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

GSID vs. UMMA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GSID drawdown since its inception was -29.89%, smaller than the maximum UMMA drawdown of -34.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GSID and UMMA.

Drawdown Indicators

	GSID	UMMA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.89%	-34.17%	+4.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.34%	-14.93%	+3.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.96%	-18.73%	+4.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.89%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.88%	-5.07%	+3.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.69%	-9.73%	+4.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.05%	3.89%	-0.84%

Volatility

GSID vs. UMMA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goldman Sachs MarketBeta International Equity ETF (GSID) is 5.15%, while Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF (UMMA) has a volatility of 12.08%. This indicates that GSID 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

	GSID	UMMA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.15%	12.08%	-6.93%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.28%	20.30%	-7.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.64%	22.74%	-7.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.33%	21.08%	-4.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.34%	21.08%	-4.74%

GSID vs. UMMA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

GSID vs. UMMA - Dividend Comparison

GSID's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.44%, more than UMMA's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
GSID Goldman Sachs MarketBeta International Equity ETF	2.44%	2.64%	2.90%	2.59%	2.57%	2.93%	1.02%
UMMA Wahed Dow Jones Islamic World ETF	0.95%	1.02%	0.91%	1.09%	1.77%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GSID and UMMA in my portfolio?

GSID and UMMA have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GSID or UMMA?

UMMA has higher volatility (12.08%) compared to GSID (5.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GSID dropped -29.89% vs UMMA's -34.17%.

Which ETF is better, GSID or UMMA?

On 3-year performance, UMMA leads with 21.92% vs 16.73% for GSID. On fees, GSID is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, GSID has been the lower-risk option at 5.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GSID or UMMA?

Over the 3-year period, UMMA has performed better with a 21.92% return vs 16.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GSID or UMMA?

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

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

GSID has the higher dividend yield at 2.44%, compared with 0.95% for UMMA.

What is the main difference between GSID and UMMA?

They also come from different issuers: Goldman Sachs and Wahed. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for GSID and 0.65% for UMMA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

UMMA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.24 vs 1.45), 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.